IBIB9 


BXCHANOA 


FRANCISCI  DE  VICTORIA 
DE  IVRE  BELLI   RELECTIO 

BY 

Herbert  Francis  Wright 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Letters  of  the  Catholic 

University  of  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment 

of  the  Requirements  for  the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


r 


WASHINGTON 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 
I916 


FRANCISCI  DE  VICTORIA 
DE  IVRE  BELLI   RELECTIO 

BY 

Herbert  Francis  Wright 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Letters  of  the  Catholic 

University  of  America  in  Partial  Fulfillment 

of  the  Requirements  for  the  Degree 

of  Doctor  of  Philosophy 


WASHINGTON 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE  AUTHOR 
I916 


PRESS  OF  GIBSON  BROTHERS 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


PREFACE. 

It  is  no  unusual  thing  now,  since  the  attention  of  the 
whole  world  has  been  engaged  so  long  by  the  War  in  Europe, 
to  hear  propounded  on  all  sides  such  questions  as  "May 
Christians  make  war?'*  "Have  the  people  any  voice  in 
declaring  war?"  "When  are  wars  just?"  "What  may  be 
done  in  a  just  war  and  how  far  may  one  proceed  against 
enemies?"  And  while,  at  first  sight,  we  may  think  that 
these  questions,  which  are  suggested  by  the  present  war,  are 
new,  the  fact  remains  that  each  and  every  one  of  them  was 
discussed  and  answered  by  a  Spanish  moral  theologian, 
Franciscus  de  Victoria,  of  the  Order  of  Preachers,  in  his 
De  lure  Belli,  published  over  three  hundred  and  fifty  years 
ago  as  the  fifth  of  his  Relectiones  Theologies  XII.  For,  to  use 
the  words  of  Thomas  Alfred  Walker,  "In  Victoria's  treatment 
of  these  problems,  the  reader,  who  is  unprepared  for  the 
surprises  of  the  literature  of  the  Reformation  Age,  will  be 
astonished  to  discover  the  setting  forth  of  principles  which 
the  historian  of  international  practice  is  wont  to  represent 
as  entirely  modern."  Victoria  was  over  four  hundred  years 
ahead  of  his  age.  He  boldly  advanced  opinions  which  some 
of  the  international  lawyers  of  today  are  just  beginning  to 
find  courage  to  uphold.  For  instance,  "If  a  war  is  useful  to 
one  province  or  state,  but  would  draw  in  its  train  great 
injuries  to  the  entire  world  and  to  Christianity,  I  think  that 
such  a  war  is  unjust,"  says  Victoria. 

Moreover,  the  canons  for  waging  war  properly,  as  laid 
down  at  the  end  of  hi^  De  lure  Belli,  have  been  formulated 

3 

337698 


4  Preface. 

so  wisely  that  they  seem  easily  able  to  stand  the  test  of  time. 
These  canons  are  three  in  number  and  deal  respectively 
with  conduct  before  war  is  declared,  during  the  war  itself, 
and  after  the  war  has  been  finished.  First,  granting  that  a 
ruler  has  the  authority  to  wage  war,  he  ought  not  to  seek 
occasions  and  causes  of  war,  but  ought  to  have  peace  with 
all  men.  Secondly,  granting  that  war  has  arisen  from  just 
causes,  the  ruler  ought  to  wage  it  not  for  the  destruction  of 
the  opposing  nation,  but  for  the  prosecution  of  his  own  right 
and  the  defence  of  his  own  country,  and  in  such  a  way  that 
peace  and  security  may  eventually  be  obtained.  Thirdly, 
at  the  end  of  the  war,  the  victor  should  use  his  victory  with 
moderation  and  Christian  modesty  and  ought  to  consider 
himself  as  a  judge  between  the  wronged  nation  and  the  nation 
doing  wrong,  and  not  as  a  prosecutor.  It  is  difficult  to 
imagine  how  more  prudent  or  more  equitable  rules  could  be 
formulated  than  those  with  which  Victoria  concludes  his 
De  lure  Belli, 

It  is  precisely  because  of  the  importance  of  this  scholar 
and  theologian  and  the  importance  of  his  De  lure  Belli 
that  it  has  been  deemed  expedient  to  present  a  critical 
introduction  to  and  analysis  of  the  text  of  that  work.  The 
utility  of  such  a  critique  becomes  more  evident  when  we 
consider  the  untrustworthiness  of  the  texts  available.  By 
special  permission  of  the  Faculty  of  Letters,  the  text  and 
critical  apparatus  are  not  pubHshed  herewith. 


CONTENTS. 

Pages. 

Preface 3-4 

I.  Victoria's  Life  and  Writings 7-13 

A.  The  Life  of  Victoria 7-10 

B.  The  Writings  of  Victoria 10-13 

n.  Importance  of  Victoria's  De  lure  Belli. 14-22 

IIL  History  of  the  Text  of  the  De  lure  Belli 23-38 

A.  Manuscripts 23-25 

B.  First  Edition 25-28 

C.  Second  Edition 28-34 

D.  Third  Edition 34-37 

E.  Other  Editions 37-38 

F.  Summary 38 

IV.  Preparation  of  Present  Text 39-45 

Bibliography  of  Works  consulted  in  the  Preparation 

of  this  Dissertation 46-49 

Index  of  Authors  referred  to  by  Victoria 50-52 

5 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/franciscidevictoOOwrigrich 


FRANCISCI  DE  VICTORIA 
DE   IVRE   BELLI   RELECTIO 


I.  VICTORIA'S  LIFE  AND  WRITINGS. 

A.  The  Life  of  Victoria. 

Franciscus  de  Victoria^  was  born  at  Vittoria,  the  chief  city 
of  Alava,  in  Old  Castile  about  1480.  While  still  a  boy  he 
moved  with  his  parents  to  Burgos,  where  he  is  said  to  have 
received  a  liberal  education  under  excellent  teachers  and 
surpassed  his  fellows  in  acuteness  of  mind.  There,  too,  as 
a  young  man  he  entered  the  Order  of  St.  Dominic,  following 
the  example  of  an  older  brother,  Didacus  de  Victoria,  who 
was  already  professed.  After  completing  his  novitiate,  he 
spent  some  years  in  the  usual  philosophical  and  theological 
studies  and  was  then  sent  by  the  Order  to  the  University  of 

^For  a  detailed  account  of  Victoria's  life  and  works,  see  Quetif-Echard,  Scrip- 
tores  ordinis  pradicatorum,  vol.  ii,  pp.  128-130  (Paris,  1721);  Touron,  Histoire  des 
hommes  illustres  de  Vordre  de  S.  Dominique,  vol,  iv,  pp.  5Sh55  (Paris,  1747) ;  Antonio, 
Bibliotheca  Hispana  nova,  vol.  i,  pp.  496-497  (Madrid,  1783);  Dupin,  Nouvelle 
bibliotheque  des  auteurs  ecdesiastiques,  vol.  xiv,  pp.  172-175  (Paris,  1703);  Wetzer- 
Welte,  Kirchenlexikon,  vol.  iv,  pp.  1837-1839  (Freiburg,  1886);  Hurter,  Noinen- 
clator  literarius,  vol.  11,  pp.  1367-1370  (Innsbruck,  1906);  and  Ehrle,  in  Katholik, 
vol.  II  (1884),  p.  505  seqq.y  518  seqq.  For  the  most  part  I  have  followed  Quetif- 
Echard  for  the  details  of  Victoria's  life. 

For  Victoria's  place  in  the  history  of  international  law,  see  Nys,  Le  droit  de  la 
guerre  et  les  precurseurs  de  Grotius  (Brussels,  1882);  Vanderpol,  Le  guerre  devant 
le  christianisme  (Paris,  191 1);  Hallam,  Introduction  to  the  literature  of  Europe 
(London,  n.  d.);  Walker,  A  history  of  the  law  of  nations ,  vol.  i  (Cambridge,  1899); 
Nys,  Les  origines  du  droit  international  (Brussels,  1894);  Barthelemy,  Les  fonda- 
teurs  du  droit  international  (Paris,  1904),  pp.  1-36;  and  Vanderpol,  Le  droit  de 
guerre  d'apres  les  theologiens  et  les  canonistes  du  moy en-age  (Paris,  191 1). 

7 


8  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

Paris  in  accordance  with  an  ancient  custom,  which  still 
prevailed,  of  selecting  men  of  exceptional  ability  and  great 
promise  from  each  province  for  higher  studies.  At  Paris, 
he  studied  in  the  Gymnasium  Sanjacoheum  (S.  Jacques),  the 
Dominican  House  of  Studies  affiliated  with  the  University  of 
Paris,  under  Peter  Crockaert  of  Brussels,  who,  having  for- 
saken Nominalism  for  Thomism  and  become  a  Dominican, 
was  then  interpreting  St.  Thomas  before  large  and  apprecia- 
tive audiences.  Under  this  teacher,  Victoria  made  such 
great  progress  in  theology,  that  he  was  recommended  by  the 
proper  authorities  of  the  college  to  the  General  Chapter  of  the 
Order  held  at  Genoa  in  1513  as  worthy  of  being  allowed  to 
proceed  to  the  examen  ad  gradus  and  was  assigned  as  Lector 
of  the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard  in  Studia  Generalia  for 
the  year  1516.  He  must  have  passed  the  necessary  examen 
Lectoratus  satisfactorily,  for  in  the  General  Chapter  held  at 
Naples  in  151 5  he  was  approved  as  Lector  and  thereupon 
began  to  undertake  the  work  of  reading  for  the  Magistratus 
in  S.  Theologia,^  which  he  received  in  1522. 

Returning  from  Paris  to  his  native  country  he  first  began 
to  teach  at  Valladolid  in  the  Dominican  Gymnasium  San- 
gregorianum,  of  which  he  had  been  appointed  primarius 
re  gens.  On  the  death  of  Pablo  of  Leon  (Paulus  Legionensis), 
who  had  occupied  the  "catedra  prima  de  teologia"  at  the 
University  of  Salamanca  for  nearly  twenty  years  (i  507-1 526), 
Victoria  obtained  this  place  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  the 

^For  the  requisites  for  this  degree  among  the  Dominicans  and  for  the  details  of 
organization  and  administration  in  Dominican  colleges,  see  Constitutiones  fratrum 
s.  ordinis  pradicatorum  (ed.  nova,  Paris,  Poussielgue,  1886),  sec.  1047  and  11 13 
and  also  sec.  1082  et  seqq. 


Critical  Introduction.  9 

University,  although  he  had  as  opponents  in  a  competitive 
disputation  many  men  of  no  httle  reputation.  Here  he 
lectured  for  twenty  years  and  obtained  universal  fame  and 
glory  as  "the  restorer  of  scholastic  theology,"^  because  he 
inaugurated  a  movement  to  give  to  theological  science  a 
purer  diction  and  improved  literary  form  and  to  treat 
scholastic  theology,  not  in  a  jejune  and  uncultivated  manner, 
but  in  a  scholarly  and  ornate  manner,  enriching  it  with 
every  kind  of  learning,  sacred  and  profane.^ 

While  Victoria  was  making  preparations  to  attend  the 
Council  of  Trent,  which  had  just  (Nov.  19,  1544)  been  con- 
voked after  several  fruitless  attempts,  he  was  overtaken  by 
ill-health,  which  caused  him  to  relinquish  his  professional 
duties  and  finally  led  to  his  death  in  1546.^ 

No  little  testimony  is  given  to  the  greatness  of  this  master 
of  wisdom  by  his  famous  and  learned  disciples,  Melchior 
Cano,  Domingo  Soto,  Thomas  of  Chaves,*  Martin  Azpilcueta 
(Doctor  Navarrus),^  and  many  others.  Melchior  Cano,  for 
example,  says  that  "Spain  has  received  this  eminent  profes- 
sor of  theology  by  a  singular  gift  of  God,"^  and  he  attributes 
the  doctrine,  judgment,  and  eloquence  which  he  possesses 

^HURTER,  Op.  Cit.;   QUETIF-ECHARD,  Of.  cit. 

2QuETiF-EcHARD,  vol.  II,  p.  129^;  Antonio,  vol.  I,  p.  496. 

^So  HuRTER,  Antonio,  Wetzer-Welte,  and  Quetif-Echard;  yet  Nouvelle 
Bibliographie  General  says  1549  and  Walker  (page  214,  footnote  2)  says:  "Accord- 
ing to  Professor  Holland,  Victoria  died  in  1546.  Older  authorities  ascribe  his  death 
to  1549." 

^Chaves,  Summa  sacramentorum  ecclesia,  ex  doctrina  fratris  Francisci  a  Victoria 
(Rome,  apud  lulium  Accoltum,  1567),  ep.  ad  lector  em. 

^Navarrus,  Enchiridion,  i,  35,  and  16,  19. 

^"Fratrem  Franciscum  Victoria  .  .  .  quern  summum  theologies  praceptorem  Hi- 
spania  Dei  singulari  munere  accepit."  De  locis  theologicis  (ed.  Serry,  1746),  bk.  12, 
ch.  I. 


lO  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli, 

to  his  careful  heed  of  Victorians  precepts  and  admonitions. 
It  is  such  a  striking  tribute  that  we  append  his  exact  words: 

"Nimirum  si  doctrinam  meam  approbet  quispiam,  quae  utinam 
eruditorum  opinione  digna  esset,  si  in  rerum  iudicio  prudentiam, 
quae  utinam  esset  digna  nostro  cognomine,  si  orationis  cultum, 
quern  elegantiorem  adhibere  soleo,  quam  consueverunt  scholastici 
in  Ubris  suis:  in  hoc  sumus  docti,  prudentes,  et  facundi,  quo 
virum  hunc  rerum  earum  omnium  ducem  optimum  sequimur  atque 
eius  praeceptis  monitisque  paremus.   .    .    . 

"Quare  quantum  conniti  animo  possum,  quantum  labore  conten- 
dere, si  scribendi  haec  labor  est  potius  quam  voluptas,  tantum 
faciam,  ut  efficiam,  ne  cum  omnia  a  praeceptore  mihi  harum  rerum 
principia  suppeditata  sint,  ipse  mihi,  praeceptori  item  meo  videar 
defuisse.  Huius  enim  clarissimi  viri  eruditionem  memoriae  pro- 
dimus,  atque  ei,  etsi  nequaquam  parem  illius  ingenio,  at  pro 
nostro  tamen  studio  meritam  gratiam  debitamque  referimus. 
Quanquam  postulo  ab  iis,  qui  haec  in  manus  sument,  ut  mains 
quiddam  de  magistro  meo,  quam  quantum  a  me  exprimi  potest, 
suspicentur."^ 

"Nihil  vero  de  me;  de  praeceptore  dicam  libentius,  qui  Academias 
Hispanas  adeo  insigniter  ingenio  suo  et  doctrina  illustravit; 
adeoque  nostris  hominibus  et  spectabiles  et  amabiles  reddidit, 
ut  in  eas  certatim  non  confluxerint  modo,  sed  irruperint.  Quod 
si  ille  Gallis,  Germanis,  atque  Italis  scripsisset,  quae  erat  hominis 
in  disputando  perspicuitas,  elegantia,  et  suavitas,  non  ita  nunc 
apud  eas  gentes  scholae  studia  iacerent."^ 

B.  The  Writings  of  Victoria. 

Victoria  is  said  to  have  been  the  first  in  Spain  to  recognize 
the  far  greater  utility  of  requiring  his  students  to  write  what 
he  dictated  than  of  requiring  them  merely  to  listen  to  his 
lectures,  a  method  which  had  hitherto  been  customary. 
Hence  it  appears  that  he  neglected  to  publish  any  of  the 
many  treatises  which  he  must  have  dictated  in  the  twenty 

^Ihid.y  12,  I.  ^Ibid.y  12,  5. 


Critical  Introduction,  1 1 

years  of  his  professorship.  Hence  also  the  reason  why  those, 
who  were  fortunate  enough  to  hear  his  lectures,  were  all  the 
more  careful  in  transcribing  the  words  that  he  dictated. 
In  this  way  there  are  attributed  to  him  the  following  works : 

Relectiones  Theologies  XII. 

Summa  Sacramentorum  Ecclesics} 

A  manual  for  confessors  sometimes  called  Confesionario,  some- 
times Instruccion  y  Refugio  del  Anima^. 

In  Universam  Summam  Theologies  Sancti  Thomcs  Commen- 
taria.     Unpublished  MS.^ 

Commentaria  in  I V  Lib.  Sententiarum.    Unpublished  MS.^ 

Concerning  the  title  of  the  Relectiones  TheologiccB  Xlly 
Ompteda^  and  Morhofius^  erroneously  call  them  Prcelec- 
tiones  instead  of  Relectiones^  while  Simon  in  his  edition 
(Cologne  and  Frankfort,  1696)  gives  the  title  as  Relectiones 
Morales.  Simon  also  gives  the  number  as  thirteen  and  in 
this  is  undoubtedly  following  the  Ingolstadt  edition  of 
1580.^  There  is  also  some  discrepancy  among  authorities 
as  to  the  exact   relectiones  contained   in  this  work.     An- 

^MoRHOFius  {loc.  cit.)  erroneously  calls  this  Summa  sacrorum  ecdesice.  I  have 
given  the  title  as  it  appears  in  the  Rome  edition  of  1567,  mentioned  above  on 
page  9,  footnote  4. 

^Latter  title  given  by  Didacus  de  Zuiiiga,  according  to  Antonio,  op.  cit. 

^Mentioned  by  Boyer  at  the  end  of  his  letter  to  Valdez  which  is  prefixed  to  his 
edition  and  by  later  biographers,  who,  however,  do  not  mention  the  location. 
SuAREZ,  De  caritatCy  disp.  9,  sec.  4,  n.  15,  and  Molina,  tr.  4  de  iustittay  disp.  16,  n.  i, 
cite  Victoria's  manuscript  commentary  on  the  Secunda  Secunday  and  Victoria  him- 
self cites  his  commentary  on  Prima  Secunda  in  his  De  Indis. 

^Mentioned  by  Boyer  at  the  end  of  his  letter  to  Valdez  which  is  prefixed  to  his 
edition  and  by  later  biographers,  who,  however,  do  not  mention  the  location. 

^D.  H.  L.  Ompteda,  Litteratur  des  Folkerrechts  (Ratisbon,  1785),  p.  169. 

^Daniel  Georgius  Morhofius,  Polyhistor  literariusy  philosophicus  et  practicus 
(Ed.  3,  Lubeck,  1732),  vol.  11,  i,  14,  41,  p.  96. 

'^See  the  full  title  of  Simon's  edition  on  p.  46. 


12  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

tonio,^  whom  Hurter^  apparently  followed,  erroneously  in- 
cludes De  silentii  ohligatione  in  the  Relectiones  Theologicce 
XII  and  the  Nouvelle  Bihliographie  Generale  includes  not  only 
this,  but  the  Summa  sacramentorum  ecclesice  also. 

The  first  edition  of  the  Relectiones  was  published  at  Lyons 
in  1557  in  two  volumes,  under  the  title  I  have  given  above. 
The  individual  relectiones  were  arranged  in  the  two  vol- 
umes, as  follows: 

Tomus  Primus:  De  potestate  ecclesice,  prior  et  posterior. 
De  potestate  civili. 
De  potestate  concilii. 
De  Indis  prior. 

De  Indis  posterior,  sive  de  iure  belli. 
De  matrimonio. 
Tomus  Secundus:  De  augmento  charitatis. 
De  temper antia. 
De  homicidio. 
De  simonia. 
De  magia. 

De  eo  ad  quod  tenetur  veniens  ad  usum 
rationis. 

These  are  substantially  the  same  as  those  given  in  sub- 
sequent editions,  with  these  exceptions.  The  second  edition 
gives  the  number  as  eleven,  counting  the  two  relectiones  on 
the  Indians  as  one.  The  fourth  edition  (Lyons,  1586)  puts 
the  number  at  thirteen,  counting  the  two  relectiones  on  the 
power  of  the  Church  as  two,  and  in  this  is  followed  appar- 
ently by  Holland,^  and  avowedly  by  Walker.^  Hallam,^ 
who  saw  only  the  Venetian  edition  (1626),  makes  the  same 

^Antonio,  op.  cit.,  p.  497. 

^HuRTER,  op.  ciu,  p.  1370. 

^Holland,  Studies  in  international  law  (Oxford,  1898),  p.  51. 

*Walker,  op.  cit.y  p.  214. 

^Hallam,  op.  cit.,  p.  314,  column  2,  note  i. 


Critical  Introduction.  13 

mistake  and  accuses  Antonio  of  perhaps  never  having  seen  the 
work  because  he  gives  the  number  as  twelve.  Yet  the  two 
pairs  of  relectiones  which  cause  this  difference  ought  not 
to  be  considered  in  the  same  Hght.  The  first  pair  is  clearly 
on  the  same  subject  and  ought  to  be  treated  simply  as  two 
parts  of  a  single  relectio;  the  second  deals  with  two  distinctly 
different  subjects,  as  the  very  titles  themselves  indicate,  al- 
though the  second  is  suggested  by  the  first.  Therefore  they 
ought  to  be  considered  as  tvfo  relectiones^  as  in  the  first  edition. 


\; 


UNIVERSITY     1, 


II.  IMPORTANCE  OF  VICTORIA'S 
DE  IVRE  BELLI. 

I  have  briefly  indicated  above  the  high  esteem  in  which 
Victoria  was  held  by  his  pupils.  This  praise  is  reechoed  by 
other  contemporaries  and  by  later  scholars.  Jacques  Boyer, 
in  the  Letter  to  the  Reader  which  is  prefixed  to  his  edition 
(Lyons,  1557)  of  Victoria's  Relectiones  says  that  he  not  only 
far  surpassed  Socrates,  but  that  he  left  none  second  to  him- 
self as  the  defender  of  honest  truth.^  Juan  de  Canova,  the 
printer  of  the  second  (Salamanca,  1565)  edition  of  the 
Relectiones y  states  that  Victoria  was  so  w^l  versed  in  canon 
and  civil  law  as  well  as  theology  that  it  is  doubtful  whether 
he  ought  to  be  praised  more  as  a  finished  theologian  than 
as  a  lawyer  skilled  in  both  laws.^  It  is  in  no  uncertain  terms 
that  Alonso  Muiioz,  the  editor  of  the  same  edition,  hails  him 
as  the  restorer  of  scholastic  theology  of  Spain.^  This  title 
is  also  given  to  Victoria  by  Bartholomew  de  Medina  (1527- 
1581),  who   also  says  that  Victoria  so  illumined  obscure 

^**  Is  enim  vir  fuit  tanta  eruditione,  tania  religioney  tanta  denique  ingenii  dexteritate 
in  tractandis  sacris  eloquiisy  ut  non  solum  Socratem  ilium  umhratilis  tantum  ac  fucata 
philosophicB  authorem  longe  superaverit,  verum  etiam  sincera  veritatis  antistitem  nut' 
lum  sibi  reliquerit  secundum"    Ep.  ad  lectorem  (p.  9). 

^".  .  .  Non  in  pontificio  tantum,  verum  et  in  Ccesareo  iure,  tot  fecerat  progressus,  ut 
non  de  his  solum  qua  ad  munus  Imperatoris,  sed  et  ad  pontificatus  dignitatem  admini- 
strandam  pertinere  possent,  nihil  intactum  reliquisse  videatur.  Is  is  est  de  quo  merito 
duhitare  possemus,  num  potius  perfecti  Theologi  quam  iuris  utriusque  peritissimi 
nomine  decorate  debeamus"    Ep.  nuncupatoria. 

^"  Multum  debet  Hispania  tota  huic  prcestantissimo  viro,  quoniam  ipse  pluribus 
nominibus  demeritus  est,  illo  prasertim,  quod  cum  theologia  apud  Hispanos  confusanea, 
puherulenta,  aut  potius  lutulenta,  lacera,  pannosa,  muta,  ac  pene  elinquis  iaceret, 
huius  solius  ope  claritatiy  nitori,  candorique  suo  puritati,  ac  dignitatis  venustati,  ornaiuit 
et  integritati  veluti  longo  postliminio  restituta  est.  Testimonio  sunt  huius  veritatis  non 
modo  centuricBy  sed  Iliades  etiam  discipulorum  eiusdem,  quos  schola  ipsius  quoque 
versum  efudit." 

14 


Critical  Introduction.  1 5 

passages  in  St.  Thomas  that  he  seemed  even  to  surpass 
him.^  Nicholas  Cleynaerts  (Clenardus,  b.  1493  or  1494) 
pays  a  great  tribute  to  Victoria's  lucid  Latin  style,  when  he 
declares  that  if  Victoria  were  to  apply  his  mind  to  writing, 
the  fame  of  his  name  would  spread  throughout  the  world.^ 
Yet  it  is  not  as  philosopher  or  theologian  or  Latinist  that 
we  are  concerned  with  Victoria  here,  but  as  one  of  the 
founders  of  international  law.^  It  is  Franciscus  de  Victoria, 
in  fact,  who  first  admitted  into  a  classification  of  law  inter- 
national law  in  its  modern  acceptation  ^^ius  inter  gentes,^^ 
although  Richard  Zouche  is  commonly  considered  by  most 
authorities  as  the  creator  of  this  term.*  "That  which 
natural  reason  has  estabHshed   among  all  nations  is  called 

^*'  Doctissimus  namque  Franciscus  Victoria^  vir  prceclarus  ingenio,  eruditions, 
eloquentiay  interpres  D.  Thomce  in  Salmanticensi  Universitate,  sic  floruit,  ut  inter 
primos  merito  sit  numerandus;  qui  non  solum  abdita  D.  Thomce  arcana  discipulis 
patefecit,  verum  tamen  eo  ordine  et  dispositione  digessit,  ut  seipsum  superasse  videatur, 
Certe  ea  ratione  et  methodo  doctrinam  scholasticam  tradidit,  ut  restaurator  divina 
Theologice  Optimo  iure  habeatur."  Expositio  in  Primam  Secundce  Angelici  Doctoris 
D.  Thoma  Aquinatis  (Venice,  apud  Petrum  Dehuchinum,  1580),  ep.  nuncup.;  cf. 
also  Expositio  in  Tertiam  D.  Thoma  Partem  (ed.  2,  Venice,  Basa,  1590),  arg.  op. 

^"  {Dicere  solebat)  neminem  se  nosse,  ne  ex  iis  quidem  qui  omnem  cetatem  in  Latinis 
Uteris  trivissent,  cuius  ipsi  tam  placerent  epistola  quam  Victoria,  qui  si  animum 
aliquando  ad  scribendum  appelleret,  orbem  universum  fama  sui  nominis  occuparet." 
(Quoted  by  Quetif-Echard  and  Antonio.) 

^Cf.  Charles  Perin,  Uordre  international  (Paris,  LecofFre,  1888),  p.  394,  note  2. 
Vanderpol,  op.  cit.,  has  shown  the  development  of  the  law  of  war  in  Christian 
writers  from  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  to  the  scholastic  philosophers  and  theologians 
and  canonists  of  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries,  adducing  numerous  extracts 
from  their  works.  Fernand  Deschamps  {La  philosophie  scolastique  et  la  guerre,  in 
The  Dublin  Review,  vol.  158,  no.  317,  April,  1916,  pp.  230-258)  has  treated  the  last 
phase  of  this  development,  proposing  the  establishment  of  a  school  of  Christian 
public  law  at  Louvain  under  the  direction  of  Cardinal  Mercier.  Victoria's  impor- 
tance in  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  law  of  war  is  brought  out  strikingly 
by  both  Vanderpol  and  Deschamps. 

*E.  g.,  Holland,  Studies  in  international  law  (Oxford,  1898),  p.  i;  but  cf.  Nys, 
Les  origines  du  droit  international,  pp.  8  and  11;  Vanderpol,  Le  droit  de  guerre 
d'apres  les  theologiens  et  les  canonistes  du  moyen-dge,  p.  x. 


Quod  naturalis  ratio  inter 
omnes  gentes  constituit  vocatur 
ius  gentium.  Victoria,  D^/nt/tV, 

2,  I. 


1 6  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

international   law,"  says   Victoria/  consciously  adapting  a 

statement  of  Gaius  in  the  Institutes  of  Justinian.^     I  give 

both  statements  here  in  order  that  the  difference  may  be 

more  strikingly  shown : 

Quod  veto  naturalis  ratio 
inter  omnes  homines  constituit, 
id  apud  omnes  populos  peraeque 
custoditur  vocaturque  jus  gen- 
tium, quasi  quo  jure  omnes 
gentes  utuntur.    Inst..,  i,  2,  i. 

Zouche  repeats  Gaius'  statement,  omitting  the  words  vero 
and  populos f  and  after  some  discussion  continues,  "Law  of 
this  latter  kind,"  that  is,  of  commerce  and  wars  between 
diflFerent  nations,  "is  called  ^jus  inter  gentes.'  "^  Hence 
the  reason  why  the  term  is  attributed  to  him.  But  Vic- 
toria's alteration  of  Gaius'  words  was  intentional.  "In 
his  system  this  law  is  a  real  law  which  is  based  on  sociability, 
because  there  is  a  natural  society,  there  are  mutual  relations, 
a  communion,  a  bond  between  peoples.  One  nation  has  the 
right  of  entering  into  relations  with  another  nation  to  such 
an  extent  that  the  denial  of  the  exercise  of  this  right  justifies 
war.  In  other  words,  Victoria  saw  clearly  the  interde- 
pendence of  nations,  their  reciprocal  rights  and  duties."^ 

We  Indisy  2,  i.  ^Inst.,  i,  2,  i. 

^"Quod  est  posterioris  generis^  Jus  inter  gentes  placet  appellate."  Richard 
Zouche,  luris  et  ludicii  Fecialis,  sive  luris  inter  Gentes  .  .  .  Explicatio.  (Oxford, 
Hall,  1650)  I,  I,  I. 

*Nys,  op.  cit.,  p.  II,  who  shows  the  importance  of  this  point,  as  does  also 
Barthelemy,  Les  fondateurs  du  droit  international  (Paris,  1904),  especially  page  7, 
where  he  says:  "On  pent  dire  par  consequent  que  c'est  chez  Fitoria  que  I' on  trouve  pour 
la  premiere  fois  le  terme  jus  inter  gentes.  Le  terme  est  remarquable:  ce  qui  Vest 
encore  plus,  c'est  idee  a  laquelle  il  correspond,  c'est  la  notion  que  presente  Fitoria  de  ce 
jus  inter  gentes,  du  lien  juridique  qu'il  etablit  entre  nations,  ou  plutot  de  la  societe 
juridique  Internationale  dont  il  est  V expression." 


Critical  Introduction.  17 

It  is  Victoria  also  who  was  one  of  the  most  vigorous 
opponents  of  three  errors  commonly  found  in  extremist 
writers  on  civil  and  canon  law  who  preceded  him.  These 
were: 

1.  Infidels  have  no  right  to  possess  anything  and  war 
with  them  therefore  is  always  just.  This  was  held  by  Hosti- 
ensis,  Legnano,  and  a  host  of  canonists. 

2.  The  Emperor  of  the  Roman  Empire  is  the  temporal 
sovereign  of  the  entire  world.  Bartolus  and  his  school 
defended  this  claim. 

3.  The  Pope  is  the  temporal  sovereign  of  all  the  earth. 
This  was  sustained  by  Hostiensis,  St.  Antoninus  (Archi- 
episcopus),  Sylvester,  and  others. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  give  here  the  history  of  these  errors 
and  Victoria's  refutation  of  them;  all  of  this  has  been  excel- 
lently done  by  Vanderpol  in  his  Le  Droit  de  Guerre  d^apres  les 
Theologiens  et  les  Canonistes  du  Moyen-dge  (pp.  1 51-189). 
It  will  be  sufficient  simply  to  state  the  fact  that  one  of  the 
dreams  of  the  Middle  Ages  was  the  reconstitution  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  which  was  to  embrace  the  entire  world,  and 
that  errors  which  arose  from  attempts  to  reahze  this  dream 
were  so  ably  opposed  and  refuted  by  Victoria  that  later 
writers  mention  them  merely  as  a  memory  and  as  no  longer 
upheld.^ 

But  in  Victoria's  time  these  were  live  topics  of  discussion.^ 
After  the  discovery  of  the  New  World,  the  conquerors  wished 
to  justify  their  seizure  of  lands  and  their  right  to  use  arms 

^Cf.  Vanderpol,  op.  ciLy  p.  152:  "Sans  doute  de  son  temps  (z.  e.y  of  Suarez), 
(lies  n'existaient  plus  qua  I*  Hat  de  souvenir,  et  n'etaient  plus  guere  soutenues." 
*Nys,  op.  cit.,  pp.  127-128,  152-154. 


1 8  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli, 

against  the  natives  who  refused  to  accept  their  domination. 
It  is  at  this  time  that  Victoria  deHvered  his  lecture  De 
Indis^  in  which  he  reviews  in  succession  the  false  and  true 
titles  alleged  by  the  conquerors.  The  frankness,  with  which 
he  rendered  judgments  without  fear  or  favor  of  the  Catholic 
sovereigns  of  Spain,  who  had  a  very  keen  interest  in  the 
subject,  is  well  worth  noting.  He  stands  out  among  the 
Spaniards  and  Portuguese  as  the  defender  of  the  proposition 
that  infidels  can  not  be  despoiled  of  civil  power  or  sover- 
eignty simply  because  they  are  infidels.^  He  makes  his 
position  strikingly  clear  by  declaring  that  the  Spaniards 
have  no  more  right  over  the  Indians  than  they  would  have 
had  over  the  Spaniards  if  they  had  come  to  Spain.^  Another 
instance  of  his  fearlessness  and  lack  of  bias  is  the  judgment 
he  rendered  concerning  the  contemplated  divorce  of  Henry 
VIII  from  Catharine  of  Aragon.^ 

It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that  Hugo  Grotius  in  his  epoch- 
making  work,  De  jure  belli  ac  pads,  calls  Victoria  a  "theo- 
logian of  sane  judgment."^  In  the  prolegomena  to  this 
same  work,  Grotius  acknowledges  that  he  has  consulted 
Victoria  among  other  theologians  and  jurisconsults.  "I 
have  seen,"  he  says,  "special  books  on  the  law  of  war,  some 
written  by  theologians,  such  as  Franciscus  de  Victoria, 
Henry  of  Gorcum,  Wilhelmus  Matthaei,  some  by  juris- 
consults, as  loannes  Lopez,  Franciscus  Arias,  loannes  de 
Legnano,  Martin  of  Lodi;  but  all  of  these  have  spoken  very 

^This  is  Relectio  IV  oi  the  Relectiones  Theologica  XII  (Lyons,  1557). 
^Nys,  op.  cit.y  pp.  368-369. 

^he  Indian  question  is  treated  in  his  De  Indis  {Relectio  IV)  and  De  iure  belli 
{Relectio  V). 
*This  is  treated  in  his  De  matrimonio  {Relectio  VI). 
'Grotius,  De  jure  belli  ac  pads,  III,  12,  i. 


Critical  Introduction.  19 

briefly  upon  a  subject  that  is  exceedingly  fruitful,  and  many 
in  such  a  way  that  they  commingled  and  confused  without 
order  the  rulings  of  natural  law,  divine  law,  law  of  nations, 
civil  law  and  canon  law/'^  But  neither  of  these  criticisms^ 
ought  to  be  imputed  to  Victoria  as  a  reason  for  blame  because 
in  the  first  place,  although  it  is  true  that  Victoria's  lecture 
De  iure  belli  is  exceedingly  brief,  it  is  ample  for  the  purpose 
for  which  it  was  intended  by  the  author,  who  had  no  inten- 
tion of  writing  a  complete  treatise  on  the  right  of  war,  but 
merely  wished  to  supplement  his  lecture  De  Indis,  as  he 
himself  states  in  the  beginning  of  his  De  iure  belli^  and  as  the 
complete  title^  of  the  work  itself  attests;  and  in  the  second 
place,  his  Z)^  iure  belli  itself  is  so  logical  and  orderly  that  it  mer- 
its well  the  praise  that  has  been  accorded  to  it^  and  to  its 
author.^ 

^Fidi  y  speciales  libros  de  belli  jure  partim  a  Theologis  scriptoSy  ut  a  Francisco 
Victoritty  Henrico  GorichemOy  Wilhelmo  Matthceiy  partim  a  doctoribus  jurisy  ut  loanne 
Lupoy  Francisco  Arioy  loanne  de  LignanOy  Martino  Laudensi;  sed  hi  omnes  de 
uberrimo  argumento  paucissima  dixerunty  ^  ita  pleriquey  ut  sine  ordine  qua  naturalis 
suntjurisy  qua  diviniy  qua  gentiurriy  qua  civilis,  qua  ex  canonibus  veniunty  permiscerent 
atque  confunderent." 

^Cf.  Barthelemy,  op.  cit.y  p.  22,  footnote  i:  "Grotiusy  qui  a  donne  a  son  trait'e 
les  developpements  que  Von  sait,  montre  quelque  dedain  pour  cette  le(on  de  jure  belli. 
.  .  .  La  suite  montrera,  nous  I'esperons,  que,  dans  ce  dedainy  il  y  a  beaucoup  d'in- 
justice." 

^".  .  .  Visum  est  de  iure  belli  brevem  disputationem  haberey  ut  ilia  (i.  e.,  prior) 
relectio  absolutior  videatur." 

*De  Indisy  sive  de  iure  belli  Hispanorum  in  barbaros. 

^"Les  leqons  De  Indis  et  De  jure  belli  Hispanorum  in  barbaros  sont  de  veritables 
chefs-d'oeuvre  de  methode  et  de  science.  Un  ecrivain  anglais  a  compare  un  jour  les 
grands  travaux  de  Suarez  aux  belles  creations  architecturales  des  Arabes;  iciy  nous  nous 
trouvons  aussi  devant  un  veritable  monumenty  ou  Von  ne  sait  ce  qu'ilfaut  le  plus  admirer 
la  solidite  de  I'ceuvre  ou  bien  V elegance  avec  laquelle  elle  a  He  executee."  Nys,  op.  cit.y 
pp.  128  and  129. 

^"C'etait  un  maitre  incomparable  pour  la  clarte  et  la  lucidite  du  raisonnementy" 
etc.,  Nys,  op.  cit.y  p.  128. 


20 


Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 


A  careful  scrutiny  of  Grotius'  chief  work,  De  jure  belli  ac 
pads,  shows  that  he  agrees  with  nearly  every  proposition^  laid 
down  in  Victoria's  De  iure  belli,  although  he  does  not  always 
cite  him.  The  following  is  an  instance  wherein  Grotius 
agrees  with  Victoria  on  a  very  important  point,  yet  does  not 
cite  him : 


Unica  est  et  sola  causa  iusta 
inferendi  helium,  iniuria  illata. 
Victoria,  De  iure  belli,  13. 


Causa  justa  belli  suscipiendi 
nulla  esse  alia  potest,  nisi  in- 
juria. Grotius,  De  jure  belli 
ac  pacts,  II,  I,  I. 

Yet  even  where  Grotius  cites  Victoria's  De  iure  belli,  and  he 
does  this  at  least  forty-four  times,  he  does  not  use  Victoria's 
exact  words.  The  nearest  he  approaches  to  doing  this  is 
in  the  following  passage: 


Intolerabile  esset  quod,  si 
Galli  agerent  praedas  in  pecora 
Hispanorum  vel  incenderent 
pagum  unum,  quod  liceret  occu- 
pare  totum  regnum  Francorum. 
Victoria,  De  iure  belli,  56. 


Nam,  ut  recta  notat  sani 
judicii  Theologus,  ut  propter 
pecora  abacta  aut  domos  aliquas 
incensas  totum  regnum  vastetur 
aequitas  non  fert.  Grotius, 
III,  12,  I. 


There  is  one  passage,  however,  in  which  Grotius  quotes  the 
exact  words  found  in  Victoria,  but  they  are  not  Victoria's 
own  words,  but  the  words  of  Sylvester  quoted  by  Victoria. 


Ex  quo  infertur  quod  capta 
in  hello  iusto  non  compensantur 
cum  debito  principali.  Vic- 
toria, De  iure  belli,  51. 


Et  sic  accipiendum  est  quod 
scribunt  Theologi  quidam,  capta 
in  hello  non  compensari  cum 
debito  principali.  Grotius,  op. 
ciU,  III,  13,  3. 


^Grotius  disagrees  twice;  first  he  denies  {De  jure  belli  ac  pacts,  II,  i,  10)  that 
one  can  slay  an  aggressor  from  whom  no  further  danger  is  to  be  expected,  merely 
to  avoid  disgrace  (Victoria,  De  iure  belli,  5);  secondly,  he  denies  {De  jure  belli  ac 
pads,  I,  3,  4)  the  right  of  making  war  to  citizens  whose  king  has  been  neglectful  in 
vindicating  their  wrongs  (Victoria,  De  iure  belli,  9). 


Critical  Introduction.  21 


Victoria  quotes  Sylvester, 
bellum  I,  9,  2  (words  given 
above)  and  cites:  Bartolus  in  1. 
si  quid  in  hello. 


Grotius  cites  in  margin:  Sylv. 
verb,  helium  n.  10;  Vict.  n.  51; 
Bart,  in  1.  si  quid  hello,  D.  de 
capt. 


Grotius  also  quotes  other  relectiones  of  Victoria  in  this  as 
well  as  his  other  works,  though  of  necessity  not  so  frequently, 
and  sometimes  he  follows  Victoria  without  mentioning  him. 
For  instance,  in  his  Mare  liberum,  which  is  a  chapter  of  his 
De  jure  prcedce,  in  discussing  Portuguese  titles  over  the 
Indians  of  the  East,  Grotius  uses  arguments  which  recall  the 
position  of  Victoria  with  regard  to  Spanish  titles  over  the 
Indians  of  the  West.^  Nor  is  this  all.  Conring  goes  even 
so  far  as  to  say  that,  if  Grotius  "excelled  in  philosophy  and 
produced  the  incomparable  book,  De  jure  belli  ac  pads, 
he  owed  it  to  his  reading  of  the  Spanish  jurists,  Ferdinand 
Vasquez  and  Diego  Covarruvias,  who  had  in  their  turn 
made  use  of  the  work  of  their  master,  Franciscus  a  Vic- 
toria."^ In  fact,  Grotius'  direct  indebtedness  to  Victoria 
may  be  greater  than  has  hitherto  been  recognized.^  Until 
recent  years  we  find  scant  credit  given  to  any  Catholic 
writers  in  the  histories  of  international  law.  "  Ever  since  the 
Reformation,"  writes  Lorimer,^  "the  prejudices  of  Protes- 
tants against  Roman  Catholics  have  been  so  vehement  as  to 
deprive  them  of  the  power  of  forming  a  dispassionate  opinion 
of  their  works,  even  if  they  had  been  acquainted  with  them, 
which  they  rarely  were." 

^Walker,  pp.  278-280. 

^Quoted  by  Nys  in  an  edition  of  two  of  Victoria's  Relectiones,  soon  to  be  published 
by  the  Carnegie  Institution  of  Washington. 

3"  Sunt  qui  eo  usum  fuisse  Grotium  in  multis  autumant,  quanquam  raro  ille  alU' 
getur"  says  Morhofius,  Polyhistor,  vol.  ii,  i,  14,  41,  p.  96. 

*The  institutes  of  the  law  of  nations  (1883),  vol.  i,  p.  71. 


22  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

That  Victoria  has  been  able  to  survive  this  state  of  affairs, 
therefore,  may  well  mean  more  than  is  apparent  on  the 
surface  and  weight  is  added  to  this  view  by  the  fact  that 
Victoria's  Relectiones^  went  through  at  least  ten  editions, 
six  of  them  appearing  within  fifty  years.  Yet  in  spite  of 
these  ten  editions,  Hallam^  states  that  it  "is  a  book  of 
remarkable  scarcity"  and  that  some  of  those  who  since  the 
time  of  Grotius  have  mentioned  Victoria's  writings,  lament 
that  they  are  not  to  be  met  with.  In  fact,  it  was  scarce 
even  in  1696,  when  Simon  published  his  edition.^  It  is  this, 
in  addition  to  the  fact  that  he  dictated  his  lectures  and  never 
printed  them  himself,  that  explains  why  this  author,  who 
enjoyed  such  great  fame  among  his  contemporaries,  until 
recent  years  has  been  little  known  and  rarely  quoted. 

^"It  is  this  collection  that  establishes  the  claim  of  this  learned  Navarrese  to  rank 
among  the  foremost  of  the  forerunners  of  Grotius."    Walker,  p.  215. 

2P.  3 14;  cf.  HuRTER,  op.  cit.y  and  also  Vanderpol,  Le  droit  de  guerre  d'apres  les 
theologiensy  etc.,  p.  x:  "Sow  ouvrage  .  .  .  est  aujourd'hui  presque  introuvable." 

3See  the  full  title  of  Simon's  edition  on  p.  46. 


III.  HISTORY  OF  THE  TEXT  OF  THE 
DE  IVRE  BELLI. 

The  De  iure  belli  is  only  a  portion  of  the  Relectiones 
Theologies  XII,  and  constitutes  the  second  of  two  studies  on 
the  Indians  of  the  New  World,  the  first  of  which  is  entitled, 
" De  Indis  insulanis'^  in  the  first  edition,  '* De  Indis  recenter 
inventis^^  in  the  second  edition,  ^^  De  Indis  noviter  inventis^'  in 
the  third  and  subsequent  editions;  the  second,  the  one  with 
which  we  are  concerned,  is  entitled  *' De  Indis,  sive  de  iure 
belli  Hispanorum  in  barbaros''  in  all  editions^  and  by  sub- 
sequent writers  is  quoted  simply  as  De  iure  belli. 

A.  Manuscripts. 

Of  this  work,  it  is  probable  that  there  are  no  manuscript 
copies  extant.  At  least,  to  the  editor  of  the  third  printed 
edition  (Ingolstadt,  1580),  none  was  available,  for  he  fails 
to  mention  any,  and,  moreover,  states  that  he  had  corrected 
the  first  edition  (Lyons,  1557)  by  the  second  edition  (Sala- 
manca, 1565),  except  where  this  was  manifestly  wrong, 
in  which  case  he  took  counsel  with  eminent  theologians  and 
philosophers.  If  a  manuscript  copy  of  the  Relectiones  had 
been  extant,  it  would  probably  have  been  in  some  Spanish 
or  French  library.  But  Nicholas  Antonio,  a  Spaniard, 
whose  life  of  Victoria  appeared  in  1783,  makes  no  mention  of 

^Nys,  Le  droit  de  la  guerre  et  les  precurseurs  de  Grotius  (Brussels,  1882),  p.  168, 
gives  this  title  to  the  first  of  the  two  and  calls  the  second  "  de  bello"  but  this  is 
clearly  a  mistake.  He  himself  quotes  the  second  as  "  de  jure  belli"  on  p.  81,  notej, 
and  gives  the  correct  titles  of  both  in  a  later  work,  Lesorigines  du  droit  international 
(Brussels,  1894),  p.  128. 

23 


24  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

any,  nor  is  a  manuscript  copy  mentioned  by  Victoria's 
French  biographers,  Dupin  (1703)  and  Quetif-Echard  (172 1). 
Surely,  a  manuscript  would  have  been  mentioned  by  one  of 
his  later  biographers,  Wetzer-Welte  (1886)  and  Hurter 
(1906),  if  any  had  been  discovered  in  the  intervening  years. 

Yet  even  if  there  be  extant  somewhere  in  obscurity  a 
manuscript  of  Victoria's  Relectiones,  it  would  not  materially 
affect  the  text  as  transmitted  in  the  first  or  second  editions, 
as  will  appear  from  the  rest  of  this  introduction.  To  secure 
a  complete  understanding  of  this  assertion,  it  is  necessary, 
first  to  define  the  word  relectio.  At  Salamanca  it  meant  a 
kind  of  theological  exercise  not  very  unlike  those  disputations 
which  were  in  use  in  the  most  celebrated  universities  of  the 
Middle  Ages  under  the  name  of  quc^stiones  quodliheticce. 
Those  qucBstiones,  which  seemed  to  be  the  more  difficult  and 
more  useful  of  all  that  had  been  discussed  in  the  daily  pre- 
lections of  an  entire  year,  were  reconsidered  in  relectiones 
in  the  public  assembly  of  learned  men  by  the  same  doctor, 
in  order  that  they  might  be  much  more  accurately  decided 
than  theretofore  and  receive  as  it  were  the  finishing  touches.^ 

The  manuscripts,  from  which  the  first  and  second  editions 
were  edited,  were  written  by  Victoria's  students  from  dicta- 
tion, probably  when  the  lectures  were  first  delivered,  because 
it  is  not  likely,  though  certainly  possible,  that  the  lectures 
would  be  dictated  a  second  time  in  the  public  assembly  at 
the  end  of  the  year.  At  any  rate,  there  would  be  as  many 
manuscripts  of  the  Relectiones  as  there  were  auditors,  and, 
since  none  of  these  manuscripts  belonged  to  the  author,  the 

^See  editor's  preface  to  Ingolstadt  edition  of  1580. 


Critical  Introduction.  25 

authority  of  the  individual  manuscript  would  be  considerably 
lessened,  for  it  is  the  consensus  of  the  manuscripts  that  would 
give  what  the  author  probably  dictated.  This  consensus 
is  represented  by  the  first  and  second  editions  and  would  not, 
in  all  probability,  be  disturbed  by  a  single  manuscript. 
Moreover,  a  single  manuscript  would  be  subject  to  all  the 
errors  attributable  to  writing  from  dictation.  These  reasons 
will  become  clearer  from  the  criticisms  of  the  three  editions 
which  I  have  been  able  to  consult. 

B.  First  Edition. 

A  little  over  ten  years  after  Victoria's  death,  "par  grace 
et  priuilege  du  Roy  est  permis  a  lacques  Boyer  libraire  de 
Salamanca,  imprimer  ou  faire  imprimer  vne  fois  ou  plusieurs 
ce  present  liure  intitule,  Reuerediss.  Patris  Fratris  Fran- 
cisci  de  Victoria,  ordinis  Praedicatorum,  sacrae  Theologiae 
in  Salmanticensi  Academia  quondam  primarij  Professoris 
Relectides  duodecim  Theologicae."  This,  the  first  edition 
of  the  Relectiones,  bears  the  imprint  of  Lyons,  1557,  and  was 
prepared  for  the  following  reasons,  as  Boyer  relates  in  his 
dedicatory  letter  to  the  Inquisitor,  Ferdinand  Valdez. 

After  mentioning  the  fact  that  the  works  of  the  early 
Fathers  had  been  "truncati,  confusi,  obscuri,  perplexi, 
ac  denique  alienis  inventis  conspurcati,"  Boyer  says  that 
this  same  fate  befell  Victoria's  writings.  "For  one  person  had 
mutilated  them  by  making  an  unhappy  transcript,  another 
had  read  them  incorrectly,  a  third  by  suppressing  Victoria's 
name  had  usurped  a  good  and  large  portion  of  the  work,  and 
many  had  placed  the  comments  of  their  foolish  mind  in  the 


26  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli, 

midst  of  his  scrupulous  doctrine  and  singular  erudition  not 
otherwise  than  a  counterfeit  jewel  might  be  set  in  gold; 
and  the  glory  that  is  due  the  author  certain  scoundrels  had 
claimed  for  themselves  with  impunity."^  In  these  words  he 
gives  the  reasons  for  the  necessity  of  printing  for  the  first 
time  a  work,  which  its  own  author  had  never  deemed  it 
necessary  to  print.  Of  course,  we  would  not  consider 
it  cause  for  blame  for  the  student  to  adapt  the  doctrine  of 
his  master  to  suit  himself,  provided  he  does  not  attribute 
the  adaptation  to  his  master,  but  it  is  a  pity  that  Boyer  did 
not  give  more  definite  information  and  mention  the  names  of 
the  culprits  guilty  of  the  crimes  he  charged.  This  would 
have  been  extremely  interesting  and  useful  in  showing  the 
great  influence  of  Victoria  and  would  have  made  possible 
a  more  detailed  critique  of  Boyer's  methods. 

The  value  to  be  attached  to  Boyer's  edition  may  be  de- 
duced from  the  following  facts.  Boyer  was  a  contemporary 
of  Victoria  and  was  personally  acquainted  with  him.  We 
would  have  supposed  this,  even  if  he  had  not  said  it  himself,^ 
from  the  fact  that  he  was  librarian  at  Salamanca.^  Con- 
sequently he  had  first-hand  knowledge  of  Victoria's  doctrine. 
His  text  was  carefully  prepared  from  the  manuscript  copies  of 
Victoria's  auditors,  men  who  wrote  down  Victoria's  lectures 
as  he  dictated  them.     In  fact  he  feels  so  sure  of  the  accuracy 

^" Alius  transcribendo  misere  dilaceraviu  alius  corrwpte  recitavity  alius  suppresso 
viri  nomine  bonam  magnamque  operis  partem  usurpavit,  plures  denique  mentis  insancB 
commenta,  viri  illius  religiosissimi  doctrina  ac  singulari  eruditione,  non  secus  ac 
gemmam  adulterinam  auro  contexerunt;  debitamque  authori  gloriam  sceleratissimi 
quique  impune  sibi  vendicaverunt." 

^"Cuius  ego  memoria  maxime  recreor"  says  Boyer,  Ep.  ad  Valdesium,  prefixed 
to  his  edition. 

^Supra,  p.  25. 


,  Critical  Introduction.  27 

of  his  edition  that  he  beHeves  those  who  have  heard  Vic- 
toria's lectures  will  vouch  for  it  and  he  even  invites  com- 
parison of  his  edition  with  the  manuscripts.  For  the  con- 
venience of  the  reader,  Boyer  prefixes  a  summary  to  each 
relectio  and  adds  marginal  references  to  some  of  the  passages 
of  Holy  Scripture  quoted  by  Victoria.^ 

On  the  other  hand,  the  text  of  Boyer  is  not  entirely 
free  from  mistakes  and  has  so  many  misprints  that  it  alto- 
gether merits  the  condemnation  heaped  upon  it  by  Muiioz 
and  every  writer  since.  These  errors  are  numerous  and  of 
many  kinds.  I  shall  not  give  here  examples  of  misprints, 
because  they  are  so  numerous  and  can  easily  be  noticed  by 
the  casual  reader.  I  have  grouped  a  few  examples,  chosen 
at  random,  of  other  errors  under  several  headings.^ 

Substitutions. — B  has  proprios  redditus  for  public os  red- 
ditus,  12;  tutat  for  vertat,  17. 

Omissions. — B  has  omitted  the  words  in  parentheses  in 
{non)  maiorem  authoritatem  habet  princeps,  i^\  ad  vindican- 
dum  (iniuriam),  13. 

Failure  to  extend  abbreviations. — B  fails  to  extend  not  a  to 
notandum,  prooem.;  quaeque  to  quce  qucsstio,  10;  versant  to 
versantur,  36. 

^"Quantam  vero  operam  dederim  ut  totum  opus  tersum  ac  plane  purum  in  lucem 
eruereniy  iis  licebit  astimare,  qui  ipsum  authorem  aliquando  dicentem  audiverunt;  et 
its,  qui  paulo  accuratius  hanc  editionem  considerarint  atque  cum  privatis  scriptis  con- 
tulerint.  Adiecimus  prceterea^  ut  et  nihil  ornamenti  desiderari  posset  et  lectorem  labore 
non  mediocri  sublevaremus,  Relectionum  singularum  avaKeipaXaLcaariv  quandam^ 
additionesque  locorum  sacra  scripturce  indices."  Boyer,  Ep.  ad  Valdesium,  prefixed 
to  his  edition. 

^All  of  the  examples  given  are  from  the  De  iure  belli;  it  is  probable  that  similar 
errors  are  to  be  found  in  the  other  relectiones.  The  number  is  the  number  of  the 
proposition  of  the  De  iure  belli  in  which  the  passage  is  found.  Prooem.  (  =  pro- 
cemium)  indicates  that  part  of  the  De  iure  belli  which  precedes  proposition  i.  B  = 
Boyer's  edition. 


28  Victoria's  De  lure  Belli. 

Incorrect  extension  of  abbreviations. — B  has  secundo  libro 
contra  ManichcE.  for  lib.  cont.  Secund.  Manichce.,  i;  scilicet 
Tho.  for  S.  Tho.,  13;  Mediolanenses  for  some  abbreviation  of 
Mediolani,  33. 

Lack  of  proper  proof-reading. — B  has  in  de  fensione  sui,  15; 
inciviliter  (  =  vincibiliter),  20;  victor es  {  —  lictores),  22;  iusticia, 
30;  iuvetur  (  =  iubetur),  31.  These  may  have  been  caused 
by  the  reading  of  the  copy  to  the  compositor. 

C.  Second  Edition. 

It  is  no  wonder,  then,  that,  although  Boyer  had  a  ten- 
year  copyright,^  a  second  edition  was  pubHshed  by  Alonso 
Munoz,  O.  P.,  and  printed  by  Juan  de  Canova  at  Salamanca 
in  1565.  He  also  secured  a  ten-year  copyright,  as  is  clear 
from  the  letter  in  the  vernacular  which  is  prefixed  to  his 
edition.  This  letter  is  followed  by  a  dedicatory  letter  of 
Munoz  to  the  "Serenissimo  atque  Augustissimo  Hispania- 
rum  Principe  Carolo  Philippo  regis  earundem  filio,"  which  is 
very  complimentary  to  Victoria. 

In  his  letter  to  the  reader,  Munoz  explains  how  he  came 
to  publish  a  second  edition  of  Victoria's  Relectiones.  He  was 
at  Salamanca  helping  Domingo  Soto  with  the  correction  of 
proof  of  the  fourth  book  of  the  Sentences,  then  in  press,  when 
"there  appeared  a  little  book  with  a  most  imposing  title,  but 
containing  countless  horrible  misprints,  absurdities  which 
were  disgraceful  and  insulting  to  the  author  as  well  as  the 
whole  theological  school.     It  made  one  aghast  to  behold  in 

^Extrait  du  Privilege  du  Roy,  editio  princeps,  p.  3. 


Critical  Introduction.  29 

the  tiny  body  of  so  small  a  book  so  unbelievable  an  ofFscour- 
ing  of  close-packed  blunders,  and  ashamed  and  sorrowful  that 
rascals  should  seem  to  have  such  license  towards  the  master- 
pieces of  most  distinguished  men,  and  with  impunity,  too. 
This  was  the  title  of  the  book:  *The  Relectiones  of  the  Rever- 
end Father,  Brother  Franciscus  de  Victoria,  of  the  Order  of 
Preachers,  late  Primary  Professor  of  Sacred  Theology  in  the 
University  of  Salamanca.'  You  observe  how  fair  and  full 
of  promise  the  inscription  is;  and  indeed  in  Pliny's  words,  its 
bail  could  be  forfeited."^ 

Having  found  numerous  and  serious  mistakes,  Munoz 
brought  the  matter  to  the  attention  of  Domingo  Soto  and 
Melchior  Cano,  two  of  Victoria's  former  students,  who 
prompted  him  to  correct  the  printed  book  "according  to 
the  most  exact  copies."^  Later  on  the  administer  of  the 
Holy  Inquisition  in  the  matter  of  examining  books  joined 
Domingo  Soto  in  urging  Munoz  to  undertake  the  work. 
"Although  I  was  aware,"  says  Munoz,  "how  unpleasant 
a  business  it  was,  how  hard  and  wearisome  the  affair,  how 
inglorious  the  labor  of  correcting  and  restoring  the  monu- 
ments of  others  especially  those  so  ulcerous,  so  altogether 

^"Cum  SalmanticcB  agerem,  auxiliaremque  navarem  operam  fratri  Dominico  Soto 
in  emaculanda  impressione  quarti  Sententiarum,  qui  tunc  excudehatur  {Candide 
Lector),  libellus  quidam  prodiit  speciosissimo  titulo,  innumerabiles  portentosasque 
mendas,  deliramenta  pudenda,  atque  contumeliosa  autori  turn  etiam  toti  theologorum 
scholce  continens.  Stupori  erat  in  tantillo  libelli  corpusculo  tarn  incredibilem  vitiorum 
congestam  intueri  colluviem,  pudori  atque  dolori  quod  visebatur  tantum  licere  nebuloni- 
bus  in  eximias  clarissimorum  virorum  lucubrationes  idque  impune.  Titulus  libri  is 
erat '  Relectiones  R.  P.  Fratris  Francisci  Victories  ordinis  prcedicatorum  Sacra  Theolo- 
gies in  Salmanticensi  academia  quondam  primarii  professoris.*  Fides  inscriptionem 
pulcherrimam  et  undecumque  pollicitabundam  atque  adeo  propter  quam,  ut  Plinius 
dixit,  vadimonium  deseri  possit." 

^Ad  verissima  exemplaria. 


30  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

deranged,  so  piteously  (I  had  almost  said)  and  hostilely 
regarded,  as  these  were,  yet,  moved  by  the  authority  of 
my  preceptors  as  well  as  induced  by  love  of  a  very  fine 
work  and  of  its  author,  Victoria,  who  was  also  my  dearest 
of  teachers,  I  put  my  shoulders  under  a  burden  which  I 
have  loved. "^ 

In  preparing  his  text,  Muiioz  pursued  the  following  plan.^ 
He  persuaded  a  fellow-religious,  one  Petrus  ab  Afiaya,  to 
read  aloud  the  text  of  Boyer,  while  he  himself  ran  over  in  his 
mind  simultaneously  the  manuscript  copies.  When  any 
discrepancy  occurred,  they  halted  and  supplied  what  was 
wanting  or  corrected  what  was  wrong.  Doubtful  matters 
were  settled  by  consulting  many  manuscripts,  for  there  was 
an  abundance  of  them,  and  when  these  failed,  by  having 
recourse  to  the  sources  used  by  the  author.     All  of  this  was 

^"Et  quamvis  nosserriy  quam  sit  inamoenum  negotium,  quam  dura  ac  morosa  res^ 
quam  inglorius  labor,  corrigere  atque  instaurare  monumenta  aliena,  prcssertim  tarn 
ulcer  OS  a,  tarn  turhata  undique,  tarn  mis  ere,  fcencB  (sic)  dixerim  et  hostiliter  habit  a,  ut 
hac  ipsa  erant;  tamen  autoritate  prcecipientium  motus,  turn  etiam  amore  pulcherrimi 
operisy  et  illustris  autoris  eiusdemque  charissimi  mihi  preeceptoris  mei  Victorice  adduc 
tusy  humeros  amato  oneri  supposui." 

^"Rem  aggredior  assumpto  mihi  sotio  (sic)  F.  Petro  ab  Anaya,  viro  nobili  et  religioso 
atque  amicissimo,  qui  mihi  pralegebat  impressum  ilium  libellum,  ego  vero  exemplaria 
mihi  ipsi  simul  mente  prcscurrebam,  legentis  vestigia  insequens,  et  cum  quid  occurrebat 
difficultatis  vel  erroris  sistebamus  ambo  gradum  et  reponebatur  quod  deerat,  aut  corrige- 
batur  quod  erat  vitiatum.  Quod  si  quando  res  erat  dubia,  adhibitis  pluribus  exemplari- 
bus  manuscriptis,  suppetebat  enim  copia,  lis  ilia  componebatur.  Si  vero  res  erat  qua 
nullis  talibus  exemplaribus  adductis,  utpote  vitiatis  et  ipsis,  posset  transigi,  ad  ipsos 
fontes  recurrebam,  unde  ipse  autor  hauserat  sive  essent  divini  libri,  sive  ecclesia  vel 
pontificum  decreta,  sive  antiqui  patres,  sive  sententiarii  theologi,  sive  philosophi,  sive 
historici,  sive  quicunque  alii  autores,  et  sic  evidens  fiebat  germana  lectio  restituenda. 
Hunc  ipsum  laborem  secundo  assumpsi  a  capite  usque  ad  calcem  libelli,  ac  tertio  veluti 
sepositam  ad  tempus  picturam  revisi,  et  denique  iam  ipsum  opus  libit  perhumane 
lector,  tradere  audeo,  froetus  (sic)  tuo  candore." 


Critical  Introduction.  3 1 

done  a  second  time  and  a  third  time,  so  that  the  editor 
finally  gives  the  work  to  the  reader  with  great  confidence.^ 

But  the  criticism  which  Muiioz  so  vigorously  directs 
against  Boyer's  edition  can  very  justly  be  applied  to  his  own. 
While  Munoz  has  corrected  many  mistakes  of  the  first  edi- 
tion, he  has  not  corrected  all  of  them,  and,  moreover,  falls 
into  errors  of  his  own. 

The  copy  which  Munoz  sent  to  the  printer  was  Boyer's 
edition  corrected  from  the  manuscripts  by  reading  aloud. 
One  would  suppose  that  this  method  of  preparing  copy 
would  cause  errors,  and  it  may  be  due  to  this  that  certain 
mistakes  in  B  have  remained  uncorrected  in  M.^  At  any 
rate  there  are  errors  in  M  which  seem  to  indicate  that  the 
copy  was  read  to  the  compositor.^  For  instance,  M  has 
cedes  for  c cedes,  14;  pcenes  for  penes,  19;  pcena  for  poena,  58. 

Another  source  of  error  was  the  correction  of  B  according 
to  the  authors  quoted  or  cited  by  Victoria  (cf.,  e.  g.,  qui  iuste 
pugnavit,  51,  where  the  verb  is  made  to  conform  to  Sylvester's 
words).  First  of  all,  the  principle  underlying  this  procedure 
is  false,  because  it  is  by  no  means  evident  that  Victoria 
quoted  authorities  ad  litteram.  In  fact,  he  often  adapts  a 
quotation,  using  only  some  of  the  exact  words  (cf.,  e.  g.,  a  long 

^"Fruere  igitur  fceliciter  (sic)  his,  quce  tibi  nostris  vigiliis  et  laborihus  paravimus, 
quibus  factum  est  {absit  verbo  invidia),  ut  pro  luthulento  ante  a  opere,  ne  die  am  luteoy 
tersum  nitidumque  habeas  atque  undique  aureum  et  splendidum,  id  quod  facile  experi- 
mento  comperies,  si  quacunque  liber  apertus  fuerit  conferre  volueris  et  perpendere,  quid 
distet  noster  hie,  quem  tibi  tradimus,  ab  illo,  qui  correctus  est  a  nobis,  quem  videlicet 
lacobus  Boyer  excussit  Lugduni,  Anno  domini,  1557.  Ante  quem  nullus  erat  impres- 
sus,  neque  postea  ausi  sunt  illi  Tipographi  ipsum  excudere  timentes  hanc  nostram, 
quantula  eacumque  (sic)  est,  diligentiam,  quam  non  ignorant." 

^Cf.  infra,  p.  32;  A/  =  Munoz's  edition. 

^Cf.  supra,  p.  28. 


32  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli, 

passage  from  Sylvester  in  51).  Moreover,  Munoz  does  not 
always  act  according  to  the  principle  which  he  enunciates 
(cf.,  e.  g.,  mortalium,  6,  which  he  has  omitted). 

In  spite  of  Munoz's  boasted  carefulness  in  correcting  the 
errors  of  B^  many  of  these  errors  remain  uncorrected  (cf., 
e.  g.,  secundo  lihro  contra  ManichcB.  {  =  lib.  cont.  Secund. 
Manichcs.),  i;  sciri:  iure  videtur  {  =  sciri  de  iure,  videtur),  28; 
indubio,  30;  quod  culpatur  (  =  quid  culpatur),  3 1 ;  non  dum,  33 ; 
indiferenter,  39;  dificultas,  45).  Of  course,  many  of  these 
uncorrected  errors  are  purely  printer's  errors,  and  might 
easily  have  passed  unnoticed  when  read  aloud,  but  I  mention 
them  here  to  show  what  value  is  to  be  attached  to  Munoz's 
vaunted  triple  comparison.  Besides,  M  has  also  not  a  few 
misprints  which  are  its  own.  Cf.,  e.  g.,  talli  {  =  tali),  30; 
indinatus  {  =  indignatus),  38. 

But  one  of  the  most  striking  diflPerences  between  B  and  M 
is  to  be  found  in  the  substitutions  and  additions  made  by 
Muiioz.     These  may  have  been  made  for  several  reasons. 

First,  Muiioz  may  have  seen  some  manuscripts  which 
Boyer  did  not  see;  but,  since  it  is  more  likely  that  Boyer 
saw  some  that  Munoz  did  not  see,  seeing  that  he  published 
his  edition  nearly  ten  years  nearer  the  time  at  which  the 
Relectiones  were  delivered,  we  can  not  argue  with  any 
certainty  from  this  reason. 

Secondly,  Munoz,  in  order  to  avoid  a  fancied  ambiguity, 
may  have  deliberately  made  additions  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  administer  of  the  Holy  Inquisition,  who  had  suggested 
the  work  to  Muiioz  and  had  probably  had  some  share  in 
directing  it  (cf.,  e.  g.,  in  causa  matrimoniali  {in  re  duhia 


Critical  Introduction.  33 

adds  M)  non  tenetur  cedere,  30;  {mortaliter  loquendo  adds  M) 
non  possit,  31. 

Thirdly,  it  is  not  at  all  unlikely  that  Munoz  and  his  col- 
laborator, being  members  of  the  same  order  as  the  author, 
desired  nothing  to  be  published  under  his  name  that  in  their 
opinion  seemed  illogical,  incomplete  or  inelegant,  or  likely 
in  any  other  way  to  cast  reflection  upon  the  author.  This 
might  account  for  such  changes  as  the  following:  non  esset 
respuhlica  p erf e eta  {B  has  non  videtur  habere  Rempuhlicam 
perfectam,  which  is  the  more  difficult  reading),  9;  ita  gladio 
uti  {B  has  ira  gladii  uti),  13;  supra  extraneos  quam  {supra 
adds  M)  suos,  13;  prceciperet  {B  has  prcEceperit,  which  is 
defensible),  13;  parandam  {B  has  pariendam,  which  is  the 
more  difficult  reading),  18  (cf.  48);  haheat  (B  has  habet),  19; 
profligatis  {B  has  profugatis),  19;  oriuntur  (B  has  super  sunt), 
20;  per  accidens  {B  has  Christianis),  36.  There  is  no  doubt 
that  the  readings  adopted  by  M  in  these  passages  are  much 
more  logical  and  much  more  Ciceronian  than  those  of  B. 

Fourthly,  certain  additions  which  M  made,  perhaps  fol- 
lowing some  of  the  manuscripts,  may  have  been  caused  by 
the  method,  used  by  Victoria,  of  dictating  his  lectures. 
Every  professor,  lecturing  to  a  class,  often  stops  to  render 
the  same  thought  in  other  words,  not  intending  the  repetition 
to  be  a  part  of  his  formal  lecture,  but  merely  explaining 
something  in  other  words  while  his  auditors  are  writing 
down  what  he  has  said  first.  It  may  well  have  happened 
that  some  of  Victoria's  students  wrote  down  some  repetitions 
of  this  sort,  not  thinking  that  they  might  not  have  been  part 
of  the  dictation.     While  it  is  true  that  Boyer  also  might 


34  Victoria's  De  lure  Belli. 

have  incorporated  some  of  these  repetitions  in  his  text 
{e.  g.,  a  quod  is  repeated,  when  a  subordinate  clause  inter- 
venes between  it  and  its  verb,  27;  but  cf.  infra,  p.  44),  I  * 
have  not  been  able  to  find  a  single  instance  which  I  could 
assert  with  any  degree  of  certainty.  I  have,  however,  found 
several  such  instances  in  M,  though  I  can  not  allege  these 
with  absolute  certainty.  Cf., e.  g., sinefraude  (etdolo  adds  M), 
18;  ne  (bonis  et  inserts  M)  innocentihus  noceant,  19;  nee 
clericos  (nee  religiosos  adds  M),  36. 

D.  Third  Edition. 

Fifteen  years  after  the  publication  of  the  Salamanca 
edition  there  appeared  at  Ingolstadt^  another  edition 
(1580)  which  Hurter  terms  good^  and  which  all  the  later 
editions  follow.  Nothing  is  known  of  the  editor  of  this 
edition  other  than  that  he  was  "one  of  the  Doctors  of  Sacred 
Theology  in  Ingolstadt."  In  his  letter  "to  the  Christian 
reader,"  he  tells  us  that  there  are  three  points  which  he 
wishes  to  emphasize:  (i)  the  amount  of  labor  and  toil  ex- 
pended by  him  in  preparing  the  edition,  (2)  the  character  and 
greatness  of  the  author  of  the  Relectiones,  and  (3)  the  advan- 
tage and  profit  which  the  perusal  of  them  will  bring  "even 
to  Germans,  who  seem  to  be  somewhat  strange  to  the  gym- 
nastic and  scholastic  form  of  discussion  therein  employed." 

In  connection  with  the  first  point,  the  editor  quotes  parts 
of  the  letter,  which  Muiioz  had  prefixed  to  his  edition,  and 
then  continues :  *'But  I  do  not  know  by  what  ill-chance  it  has 

^I  have  not  seen  a  copy  of  this  edition.  The  information  I  have  given  concern- 
ing it  has  been  drawn  from  a  letter  which  Simon  prefixes  to  his  edition  and  which 
purports  to  be  a  copy  of  the  one  prefixed  to  the  Ingolstadt  edition. 

^Vol.  II,  p.  1369. 


Critical  Introduction.  3  5 

happened  that  into  this  Salamanca  edition,  so  clean,  so  clear, 
so  gilded,  have  crept  blunders  and  faults  neither  few  nor 
trivial.  It  labors  at  times  under  the  same  faults  as  the  Lyons 
edition;  sometimes  under  faults  of  its  own,  which  needs  must 
be  corrected  either  by  reference  to  the  Lyons  edition  or  in 
some  other  way."^  We  have  already  shown  that  this  criti- 
cism of  M  was  justified.  It  remains  now  to  show  the  faults 
of  his  own  method. 

The  text  of  the  Ingolstadt  edition  was  prepared  in  the 
following  manner.  The  editor  and  his  associate  made  a 
careful  comparison  (probably,  by  reading  aloud)  of  B  and  M, 
making  corrections  in  a  copy  of  B,  which  was  to  be  sent  to 
the  printer,  from  a  copy  of  M,  wherever  this  was  not  evidently 
at  fault.  When  a  trivial  mistake  was  found  in  M,  the  editor 
relied  on  his  own  judgment,  but  whenever  a  serious  error 
was  found  in  M,  he  consulted  skilled  theologians  and  phil- 
osophers, in  order  that  by  weighing  all  the  words  and  opinions 
of  the  author  found  in  both  editions  he  might  understand  the 
mind  of  the  author  from  the  common  judgment  of  many. 
Sometimes,  even  after  following  this  plan,  he  could  discover 
no  method  of  restoring  a  corrupt  passage.^ 

^"Sed  nescio  quonam  accident  casu^  ut  in  hanc  Salmaniicensem  editionem  tain 
tersam,  tarn  nitidam,  tarn  auream,  nee  pauca  nee  levia  menda  vitiaque  obrepserint. 
Laborat  nonnunquam  eisdem  vitiis  quibus  Lugdunensis,  nonnunquam  propriiSf  qua 
vel  ex  Lugdunensi  vel  alia  ratione  aliqua  corrigi  juerit  necessum." 

^"Ipse  et  prudens  socius,  quern  assumpseram,  utrumque  codicem  contulimus  accu- 
ratissime  et  Lugdunensem,  qui  typographo  tradendus  erat,  ex  Salmanticensi,  ubicumque 
hoc  nullum  habuisset  apertum  mendum,  pro  eo  ac  potuimus,  correximus.  Vbi  vero 
grave  et  apertum  vitium  in  Salmanticensi  occurrit  {nam  in  levioribus  mendis  tollendis 
meo  iudicio  putavi  standum)  theologos  et  philosophos  peritissimos  consului,  ut  communi 
multorum  iudicio  perpensis  in  utroque  exemplari  omnibus  et  verbis  et  sententiis  autoris, 
qucB  ad  eius  intelligendam  mentem  facere  viderentur,  vitium  cdrrigeretur  Accidit 
nonnunquam^  ut  omnes  simul  corrupti  alicuius  loci  restituendi  vix  rationem  aut 
modum  ullum  inveniremus." 


36  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

From  the  above,  it  is  clear  that  the  editor  of  the  Ingolstadt 
edition  had  at  his  command  the  same  materials  as  I  have 
used,  namely,  B  and  M,  and  it  is  true  that  he  has  made  som^e 
good  emendations  (cf.,  e.  g.,  gerit  vices  et  authoritateniy  6, 
where  B  has  both  nouns  in  the  plural  and  M  has  both  in  the 
singular;  sciri  de  iure,  videtur,  28,  where  B  and  M  have  sciri: 
iure  videtur).  Nevertheless,  his  text  contains  the  self-same 
kinds  of  errors  with  which  he  chides  the  editors  of  B  and  M. 
I  shall  give  a  few  representative  examples  of  each  of  several 
classes  of  errors,  some  intended  to  improve  the  text,  some 
altogether  unintentional.  These  examples  are  taken  from 
Simon's  edition  (Cologne,  1696)^  which  professes  to  be  a 
copy  of  the  Ingolstadt  edition.  Some  of  them,  therefore, 
and  especially  misprints,  may  belong  only  to  the  Cologne 
edition,  but  it  is  not  Hkely  that  Simon  would  intentionally 
reject  readings  he  found  in  the  Ingolstadt  edition  for  some- 
thing incorrect,  and  even  if  he  had,  he  would  not  have  done 
this  often. 

Additions. — S  has  notandum  est,  prooem.,  where  B  has 
nota  and  M  has  notandum;  S  has  Psal.  iS,  i,  where  B  and  M 
have  in  Psal.  and  the  passage  referred  to  is  in  reality  in 
Psal.  81. 

Omissions. — S  has  omitted  et  secundo  libro  contra  Manicha. 
et,  I,  entirely,  probably  not  understanding  how  the  mistake 
in  these  words  was  to  be  rectified.^  S  has  omitted  the  words 
in  parentheses  in  the  following:  (vel)  vindicare,  i;  (de)  manu, 
i;  {ad)  resarciendum  impensam,  17;  sive  nocentes  (sive  inno- 
centes),  42. 

^5  =  Simon's  edition;  /  =  Ingolstadt  edition.  ^CL  injra,  p.  41. 


Critical  Introduction.  37 

Substitutions. — S  has  naturali  for  naturce^  i;  deterrerentur 
for  deterreantur,  i ;  motu  for  metu,  i ;  nulla  fide  for  w^/a  fide^ 
22;  possessione  for  posses sioni,  30. 

Inversion. — S  contains  at  least  one  example  of  inversion: 
se  per  for  ^^r  se,  35. 

Misprints. — S  has  Turces  ( =  Turcas),  prooem.;  in  quam,  i ; 
liherare  {  =  liberate),  i;  male  factor es,  i;  omina  {  =  omnia),  17; 
pellum  (  =  bellum),  17;  ^<2r^^  (  =  parte),  32;  sequutas  {  =  se- 
quutus),  33;  iniutitics  and  Amprosio,^6',  delectum  {  —  delictum), 
47.  These  may  have  been  caused  partly  by  the  reading  of 
the  copy  to  the  compositor  by  a  German  reader  and  may 
not  have  appeared  in  /  at  all. 

The  examples  given  above  are  by  no  means  exhaustive; 
they  were  selected  at  random  just  to  illustrate,  here  as  also 
in  the  case  of  B  and  M,  that  the  editions  are  not  sufficient 
to  be  trusted. 

E.  Other  Editions. 

The  other  editions  of  the  Relectiones  that  followed  the 
Ingolstadt  edition  are  professedly  based  upon  it  and  therefore 
need  not  enter  into  this  discussion.  In  this  number  are 
included  the  editions  of  Lyons  (1586^  and  1587^),  Antwerp 
(1604),^  Venice    (1626),^    Salamanca  (1680),   Cologne    and 

^This  IS  the  edition  used  by  Walker,  op.  cit.,  p.  214:  "Relectiones  theologica 
tredecim  partibus  per  varias  sectiones  in  duos  libros  divisa.  Authore  R.  P.  F.  Fran- 
cisco a  Victoria  ordinis  pradicatorum  S.  S.  Theologies  Salmanticensis  Academies  in 
primaria  quondam  cathedra  professore  eximio  et  incomparabili.    Lugd.  mdlxxxvi." 

^Barthelemy  says  that  a  copy  of  this  edition  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bibliotheque 
Nationale. 

^This  is  the  edition  used  by  Schroeder  in  the  Catholic  Encyclopedia. 

*This  is  the  edition  used  by  Hallam,  who  says  (p.  314)  that  this  is  probably  the 
ast. 


38  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

Frankfort  (1696),^  and  Madrid  (1755).  Of  these,  the  only 
one  which  I  have  been  able  to  consult  is  the  Cologne  edition, 
which  was  pubHshed  in  1696  by  Johann  Georg  Simon, 
J.  U.  D.,  Professor  at  the  University  of  Halle.  He  has  pre- 
fixed to  his  edition  the  letter  to  the  reader  which  appeared 
in  the  Ingolstadt  edition.^ 

F.  Summary. 

To  sum  up,  we  have  shown  that  B  was  edited  from 
unknown  manuscripts,  some  of  which  {x)  may  not  have  been 
seen  by  the  editor  of  M;  that  M  was  edited  from  B  and  from 
unknown  manuscripts,  some  of  which  {x^)  may  not  have  been 
seen  by  the  editor  of  B;  that  the  third  edition  (/  =  Ingolstadt, 
1580)  was  edited  from  B  and  M  without  manuscripts; 
and  that  all  subsequent  editions  were  edited  from  /.  This 
provenance  is  graphically  shown  by  the  following  diagram: 


[x»x^] 


All  subsequent  editions,  including  S. 


^Some  authorities,  among  whom  is  Barthelemy,  give  the  date  of  this  edition 
J  1686,  but  see  the  full  title,  which  I  have  given  verbatim  on  p.  46. 
2Cf.  supra,  p.  35. 


IV.  PREPARATION  OF  PRESENT  TEXT. 

In  preparing  my  text,  I  have  made  a  careful  collation  of 
B,^  M^  and  S^  using  a  typewritten  copy  of  S  and  indicating 
thereon  in  different  colored  inks  the  variant  readings  of  5  and 
M.  For  the  most  part,  I  have  retained  the  readings  of  B, 
unless  they  were  unmistakably  incorrect.  The  reasons  for 
this  procedure  are  obvious  from  my  criticisms  of  B,  M,  and 
S  above.  It  seems  unnecessary  for  me  to  defend  passages 
wherein  I  have  accepted  the  emendations  of  M  or  S,  because, 
before  I  concluded  that  any  of  them  ought  to  be  retained, 
I  carefully  examined  and  always  rejected  it,  unless  an  error 
of  B  was  removed  by  the  proposed  change.  I  have  not 
changed  anything  that  was  in  B  simply  to  secure  conformity 
with  Ciceronian  usage  or  to  obtain  what  I  considered  more 
logical  or  more  complete  or  more  elegant  Latin.  Nor  have 
I  thought  that  corrections  ought  to  be  admitted  for  any  other 
reason  than  because  something  was  altogether  foreign  to  the 
usage  of  the  author's  time  or  because  the  sense  demanded  a 
certain  change  or  transposition  or  addition  or  omission. 
There  are,  however,  a  few  emendations  for  which  I  shall  give 
some  explanation  or  discussion,  in  order  that  I  might  show 
how  I  have  handled  the  text  and  these  I  shall  now  treat  as 
briefly  as  possible. 

Prooem.  Visum  est  de  iure  belli  hrevem  disputationem  habere, 
ut  ilia  relectio  absolutior  videatur. — ^The  obvious  meaning  of 

^A  copy  of  B  is  to  be  found  in  the  Woodstock  College  Library,  Woodstock,  Md. 
^A  copy  of  M  is  to  be  found  in  the  Bouquillon  Library  of  the  Catholic  University 
of  America,  Washington,  D.  C. 

^A  copy  of  S  is  to  be  found  in  the  Library  of  Congress,  Washington,  D.  C. 

39 


40  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

this  passage  is :  "I  am  writing  this  second  study,  in  order  that 
the  first  study  might  be  more  complete."  But  we  find  the 
readings  of  B,  M,  and  S  different.  The  reading  of  M  (ut  relec- 
tio  superior  ahsolutior  videatur)  gives  the  proper  sense,  but  it 
is  so  different  from  that  of  B  {ut  illce  relectiones  ahsolutiores 
videantur),  which  preceded  it,  and  of  S  (ut  hcec  relectiones 
ahsolutiores  videantur),  which  followed  it,  that  it  makes  one 
suspect  its  genuineness.  The  emendation  I  have  proposed 
gives  the  proper  sense  and  a  satisfactory  explanation  of  the 
existing  readings.  The  reading  of  5  I  take  to  be  either  a 
dehberate  change  of  Boyer  to  procure  what  he  thought 
would  make  better  sense  or  an  incorrect  extension  ot  what 
he  thought  were  abbreviated  words.  I  do  not  think  Boyer 
would  be  guilty  of  the  former;  the  latter  could  have  happened 
in  the  following  manner.  In  a  manuscript  in  which  diph- 
thongs are  ligatured  it  is  easy  to  mistake  ilia  for  illce.  Once 
this  mistake  was  made,  it  would  be  easy  to  think  relectio  and 
ahsolutior  were  abbreviations,  and  the  mistaking  of  third 
person  singular  forms  for  third  person  plural  forms  and  vice 
versa  due  to  the  use  of  the  macron  to  denote  the  omission  of 
n,  is  too  frequent  an  occurrence  to  need  further  comment 
{e.  g.,  M  has  essent  for  esset,  48;  interficiatur  for  inter ficiantur, 
49;  ^  has  pugnat  for  pugnant,  36). 

Procem.  Quantum  ad  primam. — B,  M,  and  S  have  primum, 
which  I  have  rejected  in  favor  of  primam,  in  spite  of  its  being 
the  lectio  difficilior,  because  the  author  is  speaking  about  the 
first  qucestioy  which  he  has  just  mentioned  and  which  he  is 
now  answering.  Furthermore,  in  speaking  of  the  other  three 
qucestiones  later  on  he  uses  secunda,  tertia,  and  quarta,  although 


Critical  Introduction.  41 

it  is  true  that  with  them  he  uses  the  word  qucestio  also.  An 
a  in  the  manuscripts  could  be  very  easily  mistaken  for  a  w, 
and  the  mistake  would  be  difficult  to  detect,  since  it  makes 
good  sense. 

I.  Et  lihro  Contra  Secundinum  Manichcsum  et. — B  and  M 
have  et  secundo  lihro  contra  Manichce.  et,  while  S  has  omitted 
these  words  entirely.  I  looked  in  vain  in  all  of  St.  Augus- 
tine's writings  against  the  Manichaeans  for  the  sentiment 
referred  to,  but  it  was  in  the  second  book  of  none  of  them. 
Finally,  I  found  the  correct  solution  of  the  puzzle,  as  given 
above.  It  is  easy  to  account  for  the  mistake  in  B  and  M. 
It  is  very  probable  that  most  of  the  references  to  authorities 
were  abbreviated  in  the  manuscripts.  The  editor  of  B 
finding,  we  may  say,  et  lib.  cont.  secund.  Manicha.  et  in  the 
manuscripts  and  thinking  it  a  mistake  {cont.  and  secund.  in- 
verted) transposed  secund.  to  the  position  in  which  we  find  it 
and  extended  the  abbreviation  to  secundo.  The  editor  of  M, 
facing  the  same  state  of  affairs,  followed  B,  while  the  editor 
of  S,  who  had  not  access  to  the  manuscripts,  omitted  the 
words  apparently  as  being  impossible. 

I.  De  verbis  Domini. — B  and  M  have  verb.,  vfhxch.  the  manu- 
scripts probably  had.  But  S,  extending  the  abbreviation, 
erred  by  using  the  singular  form  (verbo)  instead  of  the  plural. 

35.  Non  licet  in  Republic  a  pro  delictis  malorum  punire 
innocentes.  Ergo  etiam  nee  pro  iniuria  malorum  licet  inter- 
ficere  innocentes  apud  hostes. — B  has  punire  innocentes  apud 
hostes  and  this  is  followed  by  M,  but  in  the  preceding  sentence 
5  has  inter ficere,  which  M  has  replaced  with  punire.  The 
argument  of  the  passage  is:  It  is  licit  to  punish  guilty  citizens 


42  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli. 

of  the  State  and  to  kill  the  enemy  who  wrongs  us,  but  it  is 
not  licit  to  punish  innocent  citizens  because  of  the  crimes  of 
guilty  citizens  nor  to  kill  the  innocent  among  the  enemy 
because  of  the  wrong  done  us  by  the  guilty  among  them. 
Consequently,  M  did  right  in  the  preceding  sentence  in 
replacing  interficere,  the  reading  of  B  with  punire,  although 
the  reason  may  have  been  to  have  the  same  verb  in  both 
sentences,  and  may  not  have  been  suggested  by  the  manu- 
scripts, but  M  did  not  complete  the  correction  of  the  trans- 
position existing  in  B  by  making  the  reciprocal  change  I 
have  indicated  in  the  text.     S  adopts  the  reading  of  M. 

51.  Ex  quo  infertur  quod  capta  in  hello  iusto  non  compen- 
santur  cum  dehito  principali. — B,  M,  and  .S  have  infert,  but 
Sylvester,  whose  words  are  being  quoted,  has  infert  (  =  in- 
fertur), and  infert  would  not  make  good  sense  in  the  quota- 
tion from  Sylvester.  Whether  the  mistake  was  made  by  the 
writers  of  the  manuscripts  or  the  editor  of  B,  it  is  impossible 
to  say,  although  the  latter  is  more  probable,  but  it  would  not 
be  difficult  for  one  to  fail  to  notice  a  light  tilde  (cf.,  e.  g.,  36, 
where  B  has  versant  for  versantur), 

52.  Hoc  quidem  per  se  non  est  illicitum. — B  had  de  in 
place  of  my  conjecture,  quidem,  and  M  retains  the  de  but  S 
omits  it  altogether,  apparently  as  not  understanding  it. 
That  some  word  stood  between  hoc  and  per  in  the  manu- 
scripts is  indicated  by  the  fact  that  B  has  a  word  there,  which 
is  not  rejected  by  M.  That  de  is  not  the  word  is  evident 
from  its  utter  lack  of  sense.  What  then  is  the  word? 
I  suggest  quidem  as  making  good  sense  (cf.  tamen,  three  lines 
further  on)  and  as  a  word  from  which  de  could  easily  be 
derived  {^de). 


Critical  Introduction.  43 

57.  Uhi  dicitur  quod  .  .  .  cunctus  populus,  qui  in  ea  est, 
salvahitur. — B,  M,  and  S  have  dicit,  but  compare  this  with 
mandatur,  35,  and  prcscipitur,  38,  where  the  same  senti- 
ment is  expressed  (a  paraphrase  of  Deuteronomy,  20,  10-13), 
and  see  my  note  on  infertur,  51,  above. 

It  might  be  well  to  give  here  also  an  example  or  two  of 
instances  wherein  I  have  refrained  from  adopting  more 
logical  readings,  whether  they  have  been  suggested  by 
Mufioz  or  now  occur  to  me  for  the  first  time. 

18.  j4d  pariendam  pacem  et  securitatem  ah  hostibus. — ^This 
is  the  reading  of  B.  M  and  S  have  parandam,  which  is  by 
far  the  easier  reading.  I  think  that  the  reading  of  B  ought 
to  be  retained,  first,  because  it  is  the  more  difficult  reading, 
and  secondly,  because  the  same  collocation  occurs  in  48 
{ad  pariendam  pacem),  where  B  has  pariendam,  M  has 
parendum  (corrected  to  parandum  in  the  list  of  errata  prefixed 
to  M),  and  S  has  parandam.  It  is  not  likely  that  B  would 
have  made  the  same  mistake  twice,  whereas  we  know  that 
M  occasionally  made  improvements  in  the  language  of  the 
manuscripts.^  S  has  no  value  here  because  its  editor  never 
saw  the  manuscripts. 

20.  Communiter  enim  non  contingit  quod  principes  gerant 
helium  mala  fide,  sed  credentes  se  iustam  causam  sequi. — B  has 
no  negative  in  this  sentence,  where  one  is  evidently  required. 
M  puts  the  negative  before  contingit  and  in  this  must  have 
followed  the  manuscripts,  for  if  there  had  been  no  negative 
in  the  manuscripts,  Munoz  would  have  placed  the  negative 
before  mala  fide,  where  it  logically  belongs,  since  all  that 

*Cf.  supray  p.  33. 


44  Victoria  s  De  lure  Belli, 

precedes  mala  fide  belongs  also  to  what  follows  sed.     Here 
I  agree  with  M  and  S  in  retaining  the  more  difficult  reading. 

33.  Stat  quod  helium  sti  iustum  et  licitum  per  se,  illicitum 
autem  Christianis. — B  has  this  reading,  which  I  think  ought 
to  be  retained,  but  here  again  M  has  substituted  the  more 
logical  reading  {per  accidens)  for  the  more  difficult  reading 
{Christianis)  and  in  this  is  followed  by  S. 

A  few  words  with  regard  to  peculiarities  of  the  three  edi- 
tions I  have  been  able  to  consult  may  be  worth  while. 

All  diphthongs  are  ligatured  in  B,  M,  and  S. 

When  n  or  mis  preceded  by  a  vowel,  a  tilde  is  placed  over 
the  vowel  and  the  n  or  m  omitted  in  B,  M,  and  S. 

Initial  u  is  written  v  and  interior  v  is  written  u  in  M. 

The  enclitic  -que  is  frequently  written  ^;  in  ^  and  M,  less 
frequently  in  S. 

The  words  qui,  quia,  and  quod,  are  written  in  the  usual 
abbreviated  form  in  B  and  M. 

In  compound  words,  m  followed  by  a  dental  or  guttural 
becomes  n  in  B,  M,  and  S. 

Joining  together  of  two  words  by  B  as  if  they  were  con- 
sidered as  one  word:  r  ever  a,  4,  19,  38;  adhoc,  7,  20;  econtra,  7, 
33>  39;  siqua,  9;  nosipsos,  21,  60. 

Some  spellings  peculiar  to  the  time  are  author,  authoritas, 
etc.  {B  and  M),  autor,  autoritas,  etc.  (S);  imo  {B,  M,  and  S) 
quatuor  {B,  M,  and  S);  charitas,  charissimi  {B,  M,  and  S) 
caussa  (S);  fcemina  {B,  M,  and  S);  ccsteri  {B,  M,  and  S) 
prcelii  {B,  M,  and  S);  and  pcenitere  {B,  M,  and  S). 

A  peculiarity  of  syntax  that  is  worth  mentioning  is  the 
repetition  of  such  words  as  quod  (  =  that)  and  ergo,  when  a 


Critical  Introduction.  45 

subordinate  clause  intervenes  between  the  word  and  the  rest 
of  its  clause  {e.  g.,  Quo  ad  ipsos  principes,  videtur  quod,  si 
unus  est  in  legitima  possessione,  quod,  manente  dubio,  non 
possit  alius  hello  et  armis  repetere,  27;  Intolerahile  esset  quod, 
si  Gain  agerent  prcedas  in  pecora  Hispanorum  vel  incenderent 
pagum  unum,  quod  liceret  occupare  totum  regnum  Francorum, 

56). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  OF  WORKS  CONSULTED  IN 

THE  PREPARATION  OF  THIS 

DISSERTATION. 

I.  SOURCES. 

1.  Published  Editions. 

REVERENDI  |  PATRIS  F.  FRANCISCI  DE  VI|ctoria,  ordinis  Prsedicatoru, 
sacrae  Theologiae  |  in  Salmanticensi  Academia  quondam  |  primarij  Profes- 
soris,  Relectiones  ]  Theologiae  XII.  in  duos  |  Tomos  diuisae:  j  Quarum 
seriem  uersa  pagella  indicabit.  |  SVMMARIIS  suis  ubique  locis  adiectis,  una 
cum  I  INDICE  omnium  copiosissimo.  |  (Vignette)  \  Lugduni,  apud  laco- 
bum  Boyerium,  \  M.  D.  LVII.  |  Cum  priuilegio  Regis  ad  decennium. 

REVERENDI  ]  Patris  F.  Fracisci  Victoriae  orjdi.  Praed.  sacrae  Theologiae  profes- 
soris  eximij  atq;  |  in  Salmaticensi  Academia  quondam  Chatedrae  |  primariae 
moderatoris  praelectorisq;  incoparabijlis  Relectiones  vndecim.  Per  R.  P, 
praesentatum  |  F.  Alfonsum  Muiioz  eiusde  ordi.  a  prodigiosis  in|numera- 
bilibusq;  vitijs,  quibus  Boyeri,  hoc  est  pri|ma  aeditio,  plena  erat  summa 
cura  repurga|tae,  atq;  ad  germana  exemplaria  injtegritati  ac  sinceritati 
najtiuae  restitutae.  |  Quarum  seriem  versa  pagella  indicabit.  |  {Vignette)  \ 
SALMANTICiE,  I  Apud  loannem  a  Canoua.  |  M.  D.  LXV.  |  CVM 
PRIVILEGIO. 

FRANCISCI  de  VICTORIA  1  Theologi  Hispani  celeberrimi  |  RELECTIONES  1 
MORALES  I  Duobus  tomis  comprehensae,  |  Quarum  seriem  versa  pagina 
injdicabit  Antea  Ingolstadii  editae  nunc  pro|pter  exemplarium  defectum 
&  rerum  nobiltatem  ]  recognitae  &  duplice  indice  ornatae  |  Opera,  |  JOH. 
GEORGII  SIMONIS,  |  J.  U.  D.  Consiliarii  &  Profess.  |  Hallensis.  |  Opus 
Omnibus  tam  JureConsultis  quam  |  Theologis  imprimis  utile.  |  COLONIZE 
&  FRANCOFVRTI,  1  Sumptibus  AUGUSTI  BOETII.  |  M  DC  XCVI. 

2.  Translations. 

Vanderpol,  a.  La  Guerre  devant  le  Christianisme.  (Ouvrage  suivi  d'une  traduc- 
tion du  "De  lure  Belli"  de  Francois  de  Victoria).  2™^  Edition.  Tralin, 
Paris,  [191 1].     The  translation  occupies  pages  223-274. 

Bate,  John  Pawley.  Relectiones  De  Indis  et  De  lure  Belli,  with  Introduction  by 
Ernest  Nys  and  Translation  of  the  Text  by  John  Pawley  Bate.  Carnegie 
Institution  of  Washington,  Washington,  D.  C,  in  press. 

46 


Bibliography.  47 

II.  WORKS. 

1.  General. 

A,  Time  and  Influence. 

Barthelemy,  Joseph.  Francois  de  Vitoria.  In  Les  Fondateurs  du  Droit  Inter- 
national, avec  une  Introduction  de  Antoine  Pillet.  Paris,  V.  Giard  &  E. 
Briere,  1904,  pp.  1-36. 

Deschamps,  Fernand.  La  Philosophic  Scolastique  et  la  Guerre.  In  The  Dublin 
Review,  vol.  158,  no.  317,  April,  1916,  pp.  230-258. 

Hallam,  Henry.  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  Europe  in  the  fifteenth,  six- 
teenth, and  seventeenth  centuries.    London,  n.  d. 

Holland,  Thomas  Erskine.    Studies  in  International  Law.    Oxford,  1898. 

MoRHOFius,  Daniel  Georgius.  Polyhistor  Literarius,  Philosophicus  et  Practicus. 
Ed.  3,  vol.  II,  Lubeck,  1732. 

Nys,  Ernest.  Le  Droit  de  la  Guerre  et  les  Precurseurs  de  Grotius.  Brussels  and 
Leipzig,  C.  Muquardt,  Merzbach  &  Falk,  1882. 

Nys,  Ernest.    Les  Origines  du  Droit  International.    Brussels,  Alfred  Castaigne, 

Nys,  Ernest.  Relectiones  De  Indis  et  De  lure  Belli,  with  Introduction  by  Ernest 
Nys  and  Translation  of  the  Text  by  John  Pawley  Bate.  Carnegie  Institu- 
tion of  Washington,  Washington.  D.  C,  in  press. 

Ompteda,  Diederich  Heinrich  Ludwig.  Litteratur  des  gesammten  sowohl 
natiirlichen  als  positiven  Volkerrechts.  Ratisbon,  Joh.  Leop.  Montags 
sel  Erben,  1785. 

Perin,  Charles.    L'Ordre  International.    Paris,  Lecoffre,  1888. 

Vanderpol,  a.  Le  Traite  "De  Indis"  de  Francois  de  Victoria.  In  Bulletin  de  la 
Ligue  des  Catholiques  Fran^ais  pour  la  Paix,  No.  13,  3™^  Trim.,  1910,  pp. 

18-37. 
Vanderpol,  A.    Le  Droit  de  Guerre  d'apres  les  Theologiens  et  les  Canonistes  du 

Moyen-age.    Tralin,  Pans,  191 1. 
Vanderpol,  A.    La  Guerre  devant  le  Christianisme.    (Ouvrage  suivi  d'une  traduc- 
tion du  "De  lure  Belli"  de  Francois  de  Victoria),  2™^  Edition.    Tralin, 

Paris,  [191  ij. 
Vanderpol,  A.    Le  Droit  de  Guerre  de  Francois  de  Victoria.    In  Bulletin  de  la 

Ligue  des  Catholiques  Franfais  pour  la  Paix,  No.  20,  2™®  Trim.,  1912,  pp. 

6-23. 
Walker,  Thomas  Alfred.   A  History  of  the  Law  of  Nations.   Vol.  I.    Cambridge, 

1899. 

B.  Language. 

Cooper,  F.  T.    Word  Formation  in  the  Roman  Sermo  Plebeius.    New  York,  1905. 
Ducange,  Ch.  du  Fresne.    Glossarium  ad  Scriptores  Mediae  et  Infimae  Latinitatis. 
Paris,  C.  Osmont,  1733,  6  vols. 


48  Bibliography. 

Lewis,  Charlton  T.,  and  Charles  Short.  A  New  Latin  Dictionary  (Founded 
on  the  Translation  of  Freund's  Latin-German  Lexicon),  Edited  by  E.  A. 
Andrews.    New  York,  Harper  &  Bros.,  1895. 

Thesaurus  Linguae  Latinae.  Editus  Auctoritate  et  Consilio  Academiarum 
Quinque  Germanicarum.  Leipzig,  Teubner,  Vol.  I,  1900,  Vol.  II,  1900- 
1906;  Vol.  Ill,  1906-1912;  Vol.  IV,  1906-1909;  Vol.  V  (five  fascicles), 
1910-1913;  Vol,  VI  (two  fascicles),  1913-1915. 

2.  Special. 

Antonio,  NicoLAUS.    Bibliotheca  Hispana  Nova.    Vol.1.    Madrid,  1783,  pp.  496- 

497- 
BiBLioGRAPHiE  Generale,  Nouvelle.    Vol.  XVIII.    Paris,  1858. 
Catholic  Encyclopedia,  The.    Vol.  VI.   New  York,  Robert  Appleton  Company, 

1909- 
Dupin,  Ellies.     Nouvelle  Bibliotheque  des  Auteurs  Ecclesiastiques.    Vol.  XIV. 

Paris,  1703,  pp.  172-175. 

Hurter,  Hugo.  Nomenclator  Literarius  Theologiae  Catholicae,  Theologos  Exhi- 
bens  Aetate,  Natione,  Disciplinis  Distinctos.  Tomus  II.  Ed.  ^  emendata 
et  plurimum  aucta.    Innsbruck,  Wagner,  1906,  pp.  1367-1370. 

Quetif,  Jacques,  et  Jacques  Echard.  Scriptores  Ordinis  Praedicatorum.  Vol.  II. 
Paris,  Bullard  &  Simart,  1721,  pp.  128-130. 

TouRON,  Antoine.  Histoire  des  Hommes  Illustres  de  I'Ordre  de  Saint  Domi- 
nique; c'est-a-dire,  des  Papes,  des  Cardinaux,  des  Prelats  eminens  en 
Science  et  en  Saintete;  des  Celebres  Docteurs,  et  des  autres  grands  Per- 
sonages, qui  ont  le  plus  illustre  cet  Ordre,  depuis  la  Mort  du  S.  Fondateur 
jusqu'au  Pontificat  de  Benoit  XIII.  Tome  Quatrieme.  Paris,  Babuty 
&  Quillau,  1747,  pp.  55-65. 

Wetzer  und  Welte's  Kirchenlexikon  oder  Encyklopadie  der  katholischen  Theolo- 
gie  und  ihrer  Hiilfwissenschaften.  (Ed.  Hergenrother-Kaulen).  Vol.  II. 
Zweite  Aufl.     Freiburg,  1886,  pp.  1837-1839. 


III.  TEXTS  USED  TO  VERIFY  PASSAGES  IN  AUTHORS 
REFERRED  TO  BY  VICTORIA. 

Ambrose,  St.    Opera.    Pars  Prima.    (Rec.  Carolus  Schenkl.)    Vienna,  Tempsky, 

1897.    (Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.) 
Antoninus,  St.    Summa  Theologica,  in  Quattuor  Partes  Distributa.    Pars  Secunda. 

Verona,  Augustinus  Carattonius,  1740. 
Aristotle.    Ethica  Nicomachea.    Ed.^  (Susemihl-Apelt).    Leipzig,  Teubner,  1912. 
Aristotle.    Politica.    (ed.  Susemihl-Immisch).    Leipzig,  Teubner,  1909. 
Augustine,  St.    De  Civitate  Dei  Libri  XXII.    (Rec.  et  comm.  crit.  instr.  Emanuel 

Hoffman.)     Vienna,  Tempsky,  Vol.  I,  1898,  Vol.  II,  1900.     (Corp.  Script. 

Eccles.  Lat.) 


Bibliography.  49 

Augustine,  St.    De  Diversis  Quaestionibus  LXXXIII  Liber  Unus.     In  Patrolo- 
giae  Cursus  Completus  (ed.  Migne),  Tomus  XL.    Paris,  Migne,  1845,  pp. 

II-IOO. 

Augustine,  St.    Epistulae.    (Rec.  et  comm.  crit.  instr.  Al.  Goldbacher.)    Vienna, 

Tempsky,  Pars  III,  1904,  Pars  IV,  1911.    (Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.) 
Augustine,  St.     Contra   Faustum   Manichaeum  Libri    XXIII.     In   Patrologiae 

Cursus  Completus  (ed.  Migne),  Tomus  XLII.    Paris,  Migne,  1845,  pp. 

207-518. 
Augustine,  St.     Contra  Litteras  Petiliani  Libri  Tres.     (Rec.  M.  Petschenig.) 

Vienna,  Tempsky,  1909.    (Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.) 
Augustine,  St.    Quaestionum  in  Heptateuchum  Libri  VII.    (Rec.  los.  Zycha.) 

Vienna,  Tempsky,  1895.    (Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.) 
Augustine,  St.     Contra  Secundinum  Liber.     (Rec.  losephus  Zycha.)     Vienna, 

Tempsky,  1892.    (Corp.  Script.  Eccles.  Lat.) 
Bartolus.    Omnium  luris  Interpretum  Antesignani  Commentaria.    Tomus  Sex- 

tus.    Venice,  1590. 
Cicero.    De  Officiis.    (ed.  Miller.)    Macmillan,  1913.    (Loeb  Classical  Library.) 
Corpus  Iuris  Canonici.    Ed.  2  (Richter-Friedberg).    Leipzig,  Tauschnitz,  Vol.  I, 

1879,  Vol.  II,  1 88 1. 
Corpus  Juris  Civilis.    Vol.  I.    Ed.  "  (Krueger-Mommsen).    Berlin,  Weidmann, 

Horace.    Epistulae.     In  Carmina.    (ed.  Vollmer.)    Leipzig,  Teubner,  19 12. 
Sallust.    De  Catilinae  Coniuratione.    Ed.  ^  (R.  Dietsch).     Leipzig,  Teubner,  1874. 
Sylvester.     Summa  Sylvestrina,  quae  Summa  Summarum  merito  nuncupatur. 

(ed.  Petrus  Vendramenus.)    Venice,  Hieronymus  &  Nicolaus  Polus,  1601. 
Terence.    Eunuchus.    In  Opera.    Vol.  I.    (ed.  R.  Klotz.)    Leipzig,  Schwickert, 

1838. 
Tertullian.    De  corona.    In  Patrologiae  Cursus  Completus  (ed.  Migne),  Tomus 

II.    Paris,  Migne,  1845,  pp.  74-102. 
Thomas  Aquinas,  St.    Opera  Omnia,    (ed.  Frette.)    Paris,  L.  Vives,  1871-1880, 

34  vols. 
Tedeschi,  Nicol6.    Commentaria  Primae  Partis  in  Secundum  Librum  Decreta- 

lium.    Venice,  1588. 


INDEX  OF  AUTHORS  REFERRED  TO  BY 
VICTORIA. 

[All  of  the  references  in  the  text  have  been  verified  in  the  original  texts  of  the 
authors  cited,  except  those  of  Guido  de  Baysio  and  Pope  Adrian  VI,  to  whose  works 
I  had  not  access.  In  the  list  below,  the  numbers  outside  of  the  parentheses  indi- 
cate the  passages  referred  to  by  Victoria,  the  numbers  inside  of  the  parentheses 
indicate  the  propositions  of  the  De  lure  Belli  in  which  the  citation  is  to  be  found. 
Prooem.  (  =  prooemium)  indicates  all  that  portion  of  the  De  lure  Belli  which  pre- 
cedes proposition  i.] 

Adrian  VI,  Pope,  QucEstiones  quodlibetias,  (51);  2,  2(30) 
Ambrose,  St.,  (56) 

De  patriarchisy  i,  3  (51) 
Antoninus,  St.,  of  Florence  (quoted  as  Archiepiscopus),   Summa, 

II,  7.  8,  I  (4) 
Aquinas,  Thomas,  St.,  see  Thomas  Aquinas,  St. 
Archidiaconus,  see  de  Baysio,  Guido. 
Archiepiscopus,  see  Antoninus,  St. 
Aristotle,  Ethics,  2,  6  (20) 

Politics,  I,  3-4  (12);  3,  I  (5);  4,  10  (12) 
Augustine,  St.,  De  civitate  Dei,  5  (56) 

De  diver  sis  qucestionihus  LXXXIII,  31,  i  (i) 

EpistulcE,  138,  15  (i);  189,  4  (i);  189,  6  (i) 

Contra  Faustum  Manichceum,  22,  74-75  (i);  22,  75  (6,  31) 

Contra  litter  as  Petiliani,  2,  43  (51) 

Qucestiones  in  Heptateuchum,  6,  10  (i,  13) 

Contra  Secundinum,  10  (i) 

Sermones,  82  (i) 
Bartolus,  of  Sassoferato,  On  Digest,  48,  8,  9  (4);  48,  19,  i  (4);  49, 

15.  28  (51) 
de   Baysio,   Guido,   of  Bologna    (quoted   as   Archidiaconus),   On 

Decretum,  II,  23,  2,  2  (51) 
Cicero,  De  officiis,  2,  5  (47) 
Corpus  luris  Canonici: 

Decretum,  I,  i,  9  (51);  I,  4,  2  (12);  II,  23,  i,  2  (i);  II,  23,  i, 
3  (i);  II,  23,  I,  4  (i,  6,  31);  II,  23,  I,  5  (i);  II,  23,  2, 
2  (i,  13);  II,  23,  5,  25  (51);  II,  23,  7,  2  (51) 

Decretales,  II,  13,  12  (4);  IV,  21,  2  (30);  V,  39,  44  (30) 

Liber  Sextus,  5,  11,  6  (4) 

so 


Index.  51 

Corpus  luris  Civilis: 

Institutiones,  2,  i,  17  (51) 

Digesta,  i,  i,  3  (i,  3);  47,  10,  15  (4);  48,  8,  9  (4);  48,  19,  10 
(4);  49,  15,  24  (51);  49,  15,  28  (51) 
Hadrian,  see  Adrian  VI,  Pope. 
Hieronymus,  see  Jerome,  St. 
Horace,  Epistulce,  i,  2,  14  (60) 
Isidore,  St.,  of  Seville,  Etymologice,  V,  6  (12) 
Jerome,  St.  (56) 
New  Testament : 

St.  James,  i,  25  (i),  2,  12  (i) 

S^.  /o/in,  19,  15  (26) 

S^.  L^^^,  3,  14  (i);  20,  25  (56) 

St.  Matthewy  5,  39  (prooem.);  12,  18  (60);  13,  29-30  (37);  18, 
7  (48);  22,  21  (56);  26,  52  (prooem.) 

i^owflWj,i,32(22);i2, 19  (prooem.)  ;i3,  1-7(56);  I3»  4  (i»  13); 
14,23  (23);  15,  4  (34) 
Old  Testament: 

Deuteronomy,  20,  10-14  (35.  3^,  45»  4^,  5^,  57);  20,  14  (51); 
25,  2  (14,  48) 

Exodus,  23,  7  (35) 

Genesis,  14,  13  (i,  51) 

/oj^^^,  6,  21  (34) 

/  Zingj,  6,  21  (34) 

/  Machahees,  9,  35-41  (i) 

Psalms,  81,  4  (i) 
Panormitanus,  j^^  Tedeschi,  Nicold. 
Sallust,  De  Catilince  coniuratione,  12  (47);  51  (21) 
Sylvester,  of  Prierio,  Summa  Summarum,  s.  v.  bellum,  i,  9,  2  (51) 

1.9.3  (33);  I.  10,3  (40,52) 
Terence,  Eunuchus,  IV,  7,  19  (21) 
Tertullian,  De  corona,  1 1  (prooem.) 
Thomas  Aquinas,  St.,  De  regimine  principum,  3,  13  (56) 

Summa  theologica,  II,  i,  107,  4  (i);  II,  ii,  40,  i  (i,  13);  II, 
ii,  66,  8  (10) 
Tedeschi,  Nicolo,  On  Decretals,  II,  13, 12, 17  (4) 


VITA. 

The  author  of  this  dissertation  was  bom  in  Washington, 
D.  C,  March  28,  1892,  and  received  his  primary  education 
in  the  pubHc  schools,  his  high  school  education  in  the  George- 
town College  Preparatory  School  (1903-1907),  and  his  col- 
lege education  at  Georgetown  University  (1907-1911), 
from  which  institution  he  received  the  degree  of  Bachelor 
of  Arts  in  June,  191 1.  Since  October,  191 1,  he  has  been  a 
graduate  student  at  the  Catholic  University  of  America 
under  Rev.  Dr.  John  Damen  Maguire  (Latin  Language  and 
Literature),  Dr.  George  Melville  Boiling  (Greek  Language 
and  Literature  and  Comparative  Philology),  Dr.  John 
Bartholomew  O'Connor  (Greek  Language  and  Literature), 
and  Rev.  Dr.  Thomas  Edward  Shields  (Education),  receiving 
the  degree  of  Master  of  Arts  in  June,  191 2. 

S2 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 

or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 

•  2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 
(510)642-6753 

•  1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing 
books  to  NRLF 

•  Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made 
4  days  prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 

SEP  1  0  2005 


DD20  12M   1-05 


LD  21-100m-7,'33 


Gaylord  Bros. 

Makers 

Syracuse,  N.  Y. 

PAT.  JAN.  21,  1908 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


